🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour after the club released the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a brief short statement, the bombshell arrived, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in apparent anger.

In 551-words, key investor Desmond savaged his former ally.

The man he persuaded to join the club when Rangers were getting uppity in that period and required being in their place. Plus the figure he again turned to after the previous manager departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of his takedown, the jaw-dropping return of the former boss was practically an after-thought.

Two decades after his exit from the organization, and after a large part of his recent life was given over to an unending series of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his old hits at the team, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a while. Based on things he has said recently, O'Neill has been eager to secure a new position. He will see this role as the ultimate chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the place where he enjoyed such glory and praise.

Would he give it up easily? 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

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

It was a forceful attempt at defamation, a labeling of Rodgers as untrustful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of falsehoods; disruptive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-preservation at the expense of others," wrote he.

For somebody who prizes propriety and sets high importance in business being done with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, here was another illustration of how unusual things have grown at the club.

Desmond, the organization's dominant figure, moves in the background. The remote leader, the individual with the power to make all the major calls he wants without having the responsibility of explaining them in any open setting.

He never participate in team annual meetings, sending his son, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're glowing in nature. And still, he's slow to communicate.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to support the organization with private missives to media organisations, but no statement is made in the open.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to be. And it's just what he went against when launching all-out attack on the manager on that day.

The directive from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reviewing his invective, carefully, you have to wonder why he allow it to get this far down the line?

If Rodgers is culpable of all of the accusations that Desmond is alleging he's responsible for, then it's fair to inquire why had been the manager not removed?

He has charged him of distorting information in open forums that did not tally with the facts.

He claims Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a toxic atmosphere around the club and fuelled hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. Some of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

Such an extraordinary allegation, indeed. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Ambition Conflicted with the Club's Model Once More'

Looking back to better times, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded the shareholder at every turn, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Rodgers deferred to him and, truly, to no one other.

This was Desmond who drew the criticism when Rodgers' returned occurred, after the previous manager.

This marked the most controversial hiring, the return of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have put it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

Desmond had Rodgers' support. Over time, the manager employed the persuasion, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the fans became a affectionate relationship again.

There was always - consistently - going to be a point when his ambition came in contact with the club's business model, though.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it happened again, with bells on, recently. He spoke openly about the slow way Celtic went about their transfer business, the endless waiting for prospects to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the case as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he stated about the need for what he termed "agility" in the market. The fans concurred with him.

Despite the organization spent unprecedented sums of money in a calendar year on the expensive one signing, the costly another player and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have cut it to date, with one since having left - the manager pushed for increased resources and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He planted a controversy about a lack of cohesion inside the club and then distanced himself. When asked about his comments at his next media briefing he would usually downplay it and nearly reverse what he stated.

Internal issues? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It appeared like Rodgers was playing a dangerous game.

A few months back there was a report in a publication that purportedly came from a insider associated with the organization. It claimed that the manager was damaging Celtic with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was managing his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be there and he was arranging his exit, this was the tone of the article.

The fans were enraged. They now saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his shield because his directors wouldn't support his vision to achieve triumph.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was meant to harm him, which it did. He demanded for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. Whether there was a examination then we learned nothing further about it.

By then it was plain the manager was losing the backing of the individuals above him.

The frequent {gripes