🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour after Celtic released the news of their manager's shock resignation via a brief five-paragraph communication, the howitzer landed, from Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in apparent anger.

Through 551-words, key investor Desmond savaged his old chum.

This individual he persuaded to join the team when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and required being in their place. Plus the man he again turned to after the previous manager departed to Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

Such was the severity of his takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of Martin O'Neill was practically an secondary note.

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after a large part of his recent life was given over to an continuous series of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Considering comments he has said lately, O'Neill has been keen to get a new position. He will see this one as the ultimate chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the environment where he experienced such success and praise.

Would he relinquish it readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic could possibly reach out to contact Postecoglou, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

O'Neill's return - as surreal as it may be - can be parked because the most significant shocking development was the brutal manner Desmond described Rodgers.

This constituted a full-blooded endeavor at character assassination, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of untruths, a spreader of falsehoods; disruptive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's desire for self-interest at the expense of others," wrote he.

For somebody who values propriety and places great store in business being done with discretion, if not outright privacy, this was a further example of how unusual things have become at Celtic.

Desmond, the organization's dominant presence, moves in the margins. The remote leader, the individual with the power to take all the important decisions he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He never attend club AGMs, dispatching his offspring, Ross, in his place. He rarely, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in tone. And still, he's slow to communicate.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to support the organization with private missives to news outlets, but nothing is heard in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to be. And it's exactly what he went against when going full thermonuclear on Rodgers on Monday.

The directive from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading Desmond's criticism, carefully, one must question why did he allow it to reach this far down the line?

If Rodgers is guilty of every one of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to ask why was the manager not removed?

Desmond has accused him of spinning things in open forums that were inconsistent with reality.

He says his statements "played a part to a hostile environment around the team and fuelled animosity towards individuals of the management and the board. Some of the abuse directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unwarranted and improper."

What an extraordinary charge, that is. Lawyers might be mobilising as we speak.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Conflicted with the Club's Strategy Once More'

Looking back to better days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers praised the shareholder at every turn, thanked him every chance. Brendan respected Dermot and, really, to no one other.

It was the figure who drew the criticism when his returned occurred, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive hiring, the reappearance of the prodigal son for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the lurch for another club.

Desmond had his back. Over time, Rodgers employed the persuasion, delivered the wins and the honors, and an uneasy peace with the supporters became a affectionate relationship again.

There was always - consistently - going to be a moment when his goals clashed with the club's business model, though.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with added intensity, recently. He spoke openly about the slow process the team went about their transfer business, the interminable delay for targets to be landed, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he stated about the necessity for what he called "flexibility" in the market. The fans concurred with him.

Despite the club splurged record amounts of money 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 - Rodgers demanded increased resources and, often, he did it in openly.

He planted a bomb about a lack of cohesion inside the club and then walked away. When asked about his remarks at his next media briefing he would typically minimize it and nearly contradict what he said.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, all are united, he'd say. It appeared like he was engaging in a dangerous strategy.

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that purportedly originated from a insider close to the organization. It said that the manager was damaging the team with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his departure plan.

He desired not to be present and he was engineering his exit, that was the tone of the story.

Supporters were angered. They now saw him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his board members did not support his vision to achieve success.

The leak was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to harm Rodgers, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a probe then we learned no more about it.

At that point it was plain Rodgers was shedding the backing of the individuals in charge.

The frequent {gripes