🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes following the club issued the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a brief short communication, the bombshell arrived, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in apparent anger.

Through an extensive statement, key investor Desmond savaged his former ally.

This individual he convinced to join the club when Rangers were gaining ground in that period and required being in their place. And the man he once more turned to after Ange Postecoglou left for another club in the summer of 2023.

Such was the ferocity of Desmond's takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was practically an after-thought.

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

Currently - and perhaps for a time. Considering things he has expressed recently, O'Neill has been keen to get another job. He will view this role as the ultimate opportunity, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he experienced such success and praise.

Will he relinquish it easily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well make a call to contact Postecoglou, but the new appointment will serve as a soothing presence for the moment.

All-out Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's return - as surreal as it may be - can be parked because the biggest shocking moment was the brutal manner the shareholder described the former manager.

It was a forceful endeavor at defamation, a branding of him as deceitful, a source of falsehoods, a disseminator of falsehoods; disruptive, misleading and unjustifiable. "A single person's desire for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For a person who values decorum and sets high importance in dealings being conducted with discretion, if not complete secrecy, here was a further illustration of how unusual things have become at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's most powerful presence, operates in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the authority to take all the major calls he pleases without having the responsibility of explaining them in any public forum.

He does not attend team AGMs, sending his son, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in nature. And still, he's slow to speak out.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the club with private missives to media organisations, but nothing is heard in the open.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to remain. And that's exactly what he went against when going all-out attack on Rodgers on that day.

The directive from the team is that he stepped down, but reading his criticism, carefully, one must question why he allow it to get this far down the line?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of all of the accusations that the shareholder is alleging he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to inquire why had been the coach not removed?

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

He claims Rodgers' words "played a part to a toxic environment around the team and encouraged animosity towards individuals of the management and the board. Some of the abuse aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unjustified and improper."

Such an extraordinary charge, that is. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we discuss.

His Ambition Clashed with the Club's Strategy Again

To return to better days, they were tight, the two men. Rodgers lauded Desmond at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Brendan deferred to him and, truly, to no one other.

This was the figure who took the criticism when Rodgers' returned occurred, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive appointment, the return of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other supporters would have described it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the lurch for another club.

Desmond had his back. Over time, Rodgers turned on the charm, delivered the wins and the honors, and an fragile peace with the fans became a love-in once more.

There was always - consistently - going to be a moment when Rodgers' goals clashed with Celtic's operational approach, though.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it transpired once more, with bells on, over the last year. He publicly commented about the sluggish process the team went about their transfer business, the endless waiting for prospects to be secured, then missed, as was frequently the case as far as he was believed.

Time and again he spoke about the need for what he termed "agility" in the market. The fans concurred with him.

Even when the organization spent unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have performed well so far, with Idah already having left - Rodgers demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He set a bomb about a internal disunity within the club and then distanced himself. When asked about his comments at his next media briefing he would typically minimize it and almost reverse what he said.

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

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that purportedly came from a source associated with the club. It said that the manager was damaging Celtic with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his departure plan.

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

Supporters were angered. They now viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his board members wouldn't back his vision to bring success.

The leak was poisonous, naturally, and it was intended to hurt him, which it accomplished. He demanded for an investigation and for the guilty person to be dismissed. If there was a examination then we learned nothing further about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was shedding the backing of the people in charge.

The frequent {gripes