🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour following Celtic released the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a perfunctory short statement, the howitzer arrived, from the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in obvious fury.

In 551-words, key investor Desmond savaged his old chum.

This individual he persuaded to come to the club when their rivals were getting uppity in that period and needed putting in their place. Plus the figure he again turned to after the previous manager departed to another club in the summer of 2023.

Such was the severity of his takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of Martin O'Neill was practically an after-thought.

Two decades after his exit from the organization, and after much of his latter years 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 returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a time. Based on comments he has expressed lately, he has been eager to secure another job. He will see this role as the perfect opportunity, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the environment where he experienced such success and praise.

Would he give it up easily? It seems unlikely. Celtic might well make a call to contact Postecoglou, but the new appointment will act as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Effort at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - however strange as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest shocking development was the harsh way Desmond wrote of the former manager.

It was a full-blooded attempt at defamation, a branding of him as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For somebody who values decorum and places great store in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, here was a further example of how unusual situations have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the organization's dominant figure, moves in the margins. The remote leader, the individual with the power to take all the important decisions he pleases without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He never participate in club 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 reluctant to speak out.

He has been known on an rare moment to defend the organization with confidential missives to media organisations, but no statement is made in public.

This is precisely how he's wanted it to remain. And it's exactly what he went against when launching all-out attack on the manager on that day.

The official line from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading Desmond's invective, line by line, you have to wonder why did he permit it to reach this far down the line?

If Rodgers is guilty of all of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's guilty of, then it's fair to inquire why had been the coach not removed?

Desmond has charged him of spinning information in open forums that were inconsistent with the facts.

He claims Rodgers' words "have contributed to a hostile environment around the club and fuelled hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the board. Some of the criticism directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

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

'Rodgers' Aspirations Conflicted with the Club's Model Again

To return to better days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. The manager praised Desmond at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to him and, really, to no one other.

This was Desmond who drew the heat when his comeback occurred, after the previous manager.

This marked the most divisive hiring, the return of the returning hero for some supporters or, as some other supporters would have put it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, the manager employed the persuasion, delivered the victories and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the supporters turned into a love-in again.

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

It happened in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with bells on, recently. Rodgers publicly commented about the sluggish process the team went about their transfer business, the endless waiting for targets to be secured, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he stated about the necessity for what he called "flexibility" in the transfer window. Supporters agreed with him.

Despite the organization splurged record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the £9m another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - all of whom have performed well so far, with one already having left - Rodgers pushed for more and more and, often, he expressed this in public.

He planted a bomb about a internal disunity within the club and then walked away. When asked about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would usually downplay it and almost reverse what he stated.

Internal issues? Not at all, all are united, he'd claim. It looked like Rodgers was playing a risky game.

A few months back there was a report in a publication that allegedly came from a source associated with the organization. It claimed that the manager was damaging Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was managing his departure plan.

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

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

The leak was poisonous, of course, and it was meant to hurt him, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be removed. Whether there was a probe then we heard no more about it.

By then it was clear the manager was shedding the support of the individuals in charge.

The frequent {gripes