🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour following the club released the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a perfunctory short statement, the bombshell landed, from the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in apparent fury.

In 551-words, major shareholder Dermot Desmond savaged his former ally.

This individual he convinced to come to 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 left for another club in the summer of 2023.

Such was the ferocity of Desmond's critique, the jaw-dropping return of Martin O'Neill was practically an after-thought.

Two decades after his exit 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, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

Currently - and maybe for a while. Based on things he has expressed lately, O'Neill has been eager to get another job. He will view this role as the ultimate opportunity, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the environment where he experienced such success and adulation.

Would he give it up readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic might well reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the moment.

'Full-blooded Effort at Character Assassination

O'Neill's return - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the biggest shocking development was the harsh manner the shareholder described the former manager.

This constituted a full-blooded endeavor at character assassination, a branding of Rodgers as untrustful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "One individual's wish for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who values decorum and sets high importance in dealings being done with discretion, if not outright secrecy, this was a further example of how unusual situations have grown at the club.

Desmond, the club's most powerful presence, operates in the background. The remote leader, the individual with the authority to take all the major decisions he pleases without having the obligation of justifying them in any open setting.

He never attend club AGMs, dispatching his son, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, does media talks about Celtic unless they're glowing in nature. And even then, he's slow to speak out.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the organization with private missives to news outlets, but no statement is made in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to be. And it's exactly what he contradicted when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the team is that Rodgers resigned, but reading his invective, line by line, you have to wonder why did he permit it to get this far down the line?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of all of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's responsible for, then it's fair to inquire why had been the manager not removed?

Desmond has charged him of distorting things in public that were inconsistent with the facts.

He says Rodgers' statements "played a part to a toxic atmosphere around the team and encouraged animosity towards individuals of the management and the directors. Some of the abuse aimed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

What an remarkable allegation, indeed. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

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

To return to better times, they were tight, the two men. Rodgers lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Rodgers respected Dermot and, really, to no one other.

This was the figure who took the heat when his returned occurred, after the previous manager.

This marked the most controversial hiring, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as other supporters would have described it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Gradually, Rodgers turned on the charm, delivered the wins and the honors, and an fragile peace with the fans became a love-in once more.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a moment when Rodgers' ambition came in contact with Celtic's business model, however.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it transpired once more, with bells on, recently. He publicly commented about the slow way Celtic conducted their transfer business, the interminable delay for targets to be landed, then missed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he spoke about the necessity for what he termed "flexibility" in the transfer window. The fans concurred with him.

Even when the club splurged unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the significant Auston Trusty - all of whom have performed well to date, with one since having departed - Rodgers pushed for increased resources and, often, he did it in public.

He planted a bomb about a internal disunity within the team and then distanced himself. When asked about his remarks at his next news conference he would typically minimize it and nearly contradict what he said.

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

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that allegedly originated from a insider close to the club. It said that the manager was harming Celtic with his public outbursts and that his true aim was managing his departure plan.

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

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

This disclosure was damaging, of course, and it was intended to harm Rodgers, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. Whether there was a examination then we learned no more about it.

At that point it was clear the manager was losing the backing of the people above him.

The regular {gripes