🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes following Celtic issued the announcement of their manager's shock resignation via a brief short communication, the howitzer arrived, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious fury.

Through an extensive statement, major shareholder Desmond savaged his former ally.

This individual he persuaded to join the club 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 departed to Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

So intense was the ferocity of Desmond's critique, the astonishing comeback of the former boss was practically an secondary note.

Twenty years after his departure from the organization, and after much of his recent life was given over to an unending circuit of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his old hits at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Considering things he has said lately, he has been keen to get another job. He will view this one as the ultimate opportunity, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and praise.

Would he give it up readily? It seems unlikely. The club could possibly make a call to sound out their ex-manager, but O'Neill will serve as a balm for the moment.

All-out Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's return - however strange as it is - can be parked because the most significant shocking development was the brutal manner the shareholder described the former manager.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at defamation, a labeling of him as deceitful, a source of untruths, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's desire for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For a person who prizes propriety and sets high importance in business being conducted with discretion, if not outright privacy, here was a further illustration of how abnormal things have become at the club.

Desmond, the club's most powerful figure, operates in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the power to make all the major calls he wants without having the responsibility of explaining them in any open setting.

He does not attend club AGMs, dispatching his offspring, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about the team unless they're glowing in tone. And even then, he's slow to speak out.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to support the club with private missives to news outlets, but no statement is heard in the open.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to remain. And it's exactly what he contradicted when launching all-out attack on the manager on Monday.

The official line from the club is that he stepped down, but reviewing his criticism, line by line, one must question why he allow it to get this far down the line?

If the manager is guilty of all of the accusations that the shareholder is alleging he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to inquire why was the manager not removed?

Desmond has charged him of distorting things in public that did not tally with reality.

He claims Rodgers' words "have contributed to a toxic atmosphere around the club and fuelled hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the board. A portion of the abuse aimed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unwarranted and unacceptable."

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

'Rodgers' Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Model Once More'

Looking back to happier days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. The manager praised Desmond at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, truly, to nobody else.

It was the figure who took the criticism when Rodgers' returned occurred, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most controversial hiring, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as some other supporters would have put it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the difficulty for another club.

Desmond had his support. Gradually, the manager employed the persuasion, achieved the wins and the trophies, and an uneasy truce with the supporters became a love-in once more.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a point when his goals came in contact with the club's operational approach, however.

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired again, with bells on, over the last year. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow process Celtic went about their player acquisitions, the interminable waiting for targets to be secured, then missed, as was too often the case 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 concurred with him.

Even when the club spent record amounts of funds in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the costly Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have cut it to date, with Idah already having departed - Rodgers demanded increased resources and, oftentimes, he did it in public.

He set a controversy about a lack of cohesion within the club and then distanced himself. When asked about his remarks at his subsequent media briefing he would usually downplay it and nearly contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, all are united, he'd claim. It looked like he was playing a dangerous game.

A few months back there was a story in a newspaper that purportedly originated from a insider close to the club. It claimed that Rodgers was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was orchestrating his departure plan.

He desired not to be there and he was arranging his way out, this was the implication of the article.

Supporters were enraged. They then saw him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his shield because his directors did not support his vision to bring triumph.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He demanded 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 the manager was shedding the support of the individuals above him.

The regular {gripes