🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour following the club issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a brief five-paragraph statement, the bombshell landed, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious anger.

Through 551-words, major shareholder Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

The man he persuaded to come to the club when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and required being back in a box. And the figure he again turned to after the previous manager departed to another club in the summer of 2023.

Such was the severity of Desmond's takedown, the jaw-dropping return of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

Two decades after his departure from the club, and after much of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous circuit of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his old hits at Celtic, O'Neill is back in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Based on things he has said lately, he has been keen to secure another job. He'll see this role as the perfect opportunity, a gift from the club's legacy, a return to the place where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Will he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well reach out to contact their ex-manager, 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 parked because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the brutal way Desmond described Rodgers.

This constituted a full-blooded attempt at defamation, a labeling of Rodgers as untrustful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a spreader of misinformation; disruptive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's desire for self-preservation at the expense of others," stated Desmond.

For somebody who values decorum and sets high importance in dealings being conducted with discretion, if not outright privacy, here was a further example of how unusual things have become at the club.

The major figure, the club's most powerful figure, operates in the background. The absentee totem, the one with the power to take all the important decisions he wants without having the responsibility of explaining them in any public forum.

He does not participate in team annual meetings, sending his son, Ross, instead. He rarely, if ever, does media talks about the team unless they're glowing in nature. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to defend 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 contradicted when going all-out attack on the manager on Monday.

The official line from the team is that Rodgers stepped down, but reviewing his invective, carefully, one must question why did he allow it to reach such a critical point?

If Rodgers is guilty of all of the things that Desmond is alleging he's responsible for, then it's fair to ask why was the coach not removed?

Desmond has accused him of distorting things in open forums that did not tally with reality.

He claims Rodgers' words "played a part to a toxic environment around the team and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the management and the directors. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unwarranted and unacceptable."

Such an extraordinary charge, indeed. Lawyers might be mobilising as we discuss.

His Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Strategy Once More'

Looking back to happier times, they were tight, the two men. The manager lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Rodgers deferred to Dermot and, really, to no one other.

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

This marked the most controversial appointment, 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 difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, the manager turned on the persuasion, achieved the wins and the honors, and an fragile peace with the supporters became a love-in again.

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

This occurred in his initial tenure and it happened once more, with bells on, over the last year. He publicly commented about the sluggish way the team conducted their transfer business, the interminable delay for prospects to be landed, then not landed, as was too often the case as far as he was believed.

Time and again he stated about the necessity for what he called "flexibility" in the market. Supporters concurred with him.

Even when the club splurged unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the costly Adam Idah and the significant Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well to date, with Idah already having departed - the manager demanded increased resources and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He set a controversy about a internal disunity within the club and then walked away. When asked about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would typically downplay it and almost reverse what he said.

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

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that allegedly came from a source associated with the club. 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, that was the implication of the article.

Supporters were enraged. They then saw him as akin to a martyr who might be removed on his shield because his directors wouldn't support his plans to bring success.

The leak was damaging, of course, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it accomplished. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. Whether there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

At that point it was clear Rodgers was losing the support of the people in charge.

The frequent {gripes