🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes after Celtic issued the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a perfunctory short statement, the howitzer landed, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in apparent anger.

Through an extensive statement, key investor Dermot Desmond savaged his old chum.

The man he convinced to come to the team when Rangers were getting uppity in that period and required being back in a box. Plus the figure he once more turned to after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

So intense was the severity of his critique, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was practically an secondary note.

Twenty years after his departure from the club, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an continuous circuit of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his old hits at the team, Martin O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a while. Considering comments he has expressed lately, he has been keen to secure a new position. He'll view this one as the ultimate chance, a gift from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the environment where he experienced such glory and praise.

Would he give it up easily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic could possibly reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the moment.

All-out Effort at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's return - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the biggest shocking moment was the brutal way Desmond wrote of Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of him as untrustful, a source of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, misleading and unjustifiable. "One individual's desire for self-preservation at the expense of others," wrote he.

For somebody who values propriety and sets high importance in business being conducted with discretion, if not complete privacy, here was another illustration of how abnormal things have grown at the club.

The major figure, the club's most powerful figure, moves in the background. The remote leader, the one with the power to take all the major decisions he wants without having the obligation of explaining them in any public forum.

He does not attend club AGMs, dispatching his son, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about the team unless they're hagiographic in tone. And still, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an rare moment to support the organization with private messages to news outlets, but no statement is heard in public.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to remain. And it's just what he contradicted when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the team is that Rodgers resigned, but reading Desmond's invective, carefully, you have to wonder why he allow it to get such a critical point?

Assuming Rodgers is guilty of all of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's guilty of, then it's fair to ask why had been the manager not dismissed?

He has charged him of spinning things in public that did not tally with reality.

He says Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a toxic atmosphere around the club and fuelled animosity towards individuals of the management and the board. Some of the criticism directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

What an remarkable charge, that is. Lawyers might be preparing as we speak.

'Rodgers' Ambition Conflicted with the Club's Strategy Again

Looking back to better times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager praised the shareholder at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to him and, really, to nobody else.

This was Desmond who drew the criticism when his returned happened, after the previous manager.

This marked the most divisive appointment, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as other supporters would have put it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for Leicester.

Desmond had Rodgers' support. Gradually, Rodgers employed the persuasion, achieved the wins and the trophies, and an uneasy peace with the fans turned into a love-in once more.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a moment when Rodgers' ambition clashed with Celtic's business model, though.

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with added intensity, over the last year. He spoke openly about the slow way the team went about their transfer business, the interminable waiting for targets to be landed, then missed, as was too often the situation as far as he was concerned.

Repeatedly he spoke about the need for what he called "agility" in the transfer window. The fans concurred with him.

Even when the club spent record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the costly another player and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have cut it to date, with one already having departed - the manager demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He set a controversy about a internal disunity within the team and then distanced himself. When asked about his comments at his next media briefing he would typically downplay it and nearly contradict what he stated.

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

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly originated from a insider close to the club. It said that the manager was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was orchestrating his exit strategy.

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

The fans were angered. They now viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his board members did not back his vision to bring triumph.

This disclosure was damaging, of course, and it was meant to harm Rodgers, which it accomplished. He demanded for an inquiry 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 losing the backing of the individuals in charge.

The regular {gripes