🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour after Celtic issued the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a brief five-paragraph communication, the howitzer arrived, from Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in obvious fury.

In an extensive statement, key investor Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

This individual he convinced to come to the club when Rangers were getting uppity in that period and needed putting back in a box. Plus the man he once more relied on after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

Such was the severity of his takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of Martin O'Neill was almost an after-thought.

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an unending circuit of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is back in the dugout.

Currently - and perhaps for a time. Based on things he has said lately, he has been eager to secure a new position. He will see this one as the perfect chance, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the environment where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Would he relinquish it easily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well reach out to contact Postecoglou, but O'Neill will act as a balm for the moment.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's return - as surreal as it is - can be parked because the most significant 'wow!' moment was the brutal way the shareholder wrote of Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a perpetrator of untruths, a disseminator of falsehoods; disruptive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's desire for self-preservation at the cost of others," wrote he.

For somebody who prizes decorum and places great store in dealings being conducted with discretion, if not outright secrecy, here was a further illustration of how abnormal situations have grown at the club.

Desmond, the organization's most powerful presence, operates in the background. The absentee totem, the individual with the power to make all the important calls he wants without having the obligation of justifying them in any open setting.

He does not participate in team annual meetings, sending his son, his son, in his place. He seldom, if ever, does interviews about the team unless they're glowing in nature. And even then, he's slow to communicate.

There have been instances on an rare moment to defend the organization with confidential messages to news outlets, but nothing is made in public.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to be. And that's exactly what he contradicted when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on that day.

The directive from the club is that he resigned, but reading his criticism, line by line, one must question why did he allow it to reach this far down the line?

If Rodgers is guilty of every one of the accusations that Desmond is claiming he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to ask why had been the manager not removed?

He has accused him of spinning information in open forums that were inconsistent with the facts.

He claims his statements "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the team and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the board. Some of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and unacceptable."

Such an remarkable allegation, that is. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we speak.

'Rodgers' Ambition Clashed with Celtic's Strategy Once More'

To return to happier days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Rodgers respected Dermot and, really, to nobody else.

It was Desmond who drew the criticism when his comeback happened, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most divisive appointment, the reappearance of the returning hero for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have put it, the arrival of the shameless one, who departed in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Gradually, the manager employed the persuasion, achieved the wins and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the supporters turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a moment when his ambition clashed with the club's business model, however.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it transpired again, with bells on, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow way the team went about their transfer business, the endless waiting for prospects to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was believed.

Time and again he spoke about the necessity for what he called "agility" in the transfer window. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the organization spent record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the expensive one signing, the costly Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have cut it so far, with Idah already having departed - the manager demanded increased resources and, oftentimes, he expressed this in public.

He planted a bomb about a lack of cohesion within the team and then walked away. When asked about his comments at his subsequent news conference he would typically minimize it and almost reverse what he stated.

Internal issues? Not at all, all are united, he'd say. It looked like Rodgers was playing a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a story in a newspaper that allegedly originated from a source associated with the club. It said that Rodgers was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was orchestrating his departure plan.

He desired not to be there and he was engineering his exit, this was the implication of the story.

The fans were angered. They now viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his directors wouldn't support his vision to achieve success.

This disclosure was damaging, of course, and it was intended to harm him, which it accomplished. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. If there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

At that point it was clear the manager was shedding the support of the people above him.

The regular {gripes