🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour following the club released the announcement of their manager's shock departure via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the howitzer landed, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in obvious anger.

In an extensive statement, major shareholder Desmond savaged his former ally.

This individual he convinced to join the team when Rangers were gaining ground in that period and required being in their place. Plus the man he once more relied on after Ange Postecoglou departed to another club in the summer of 2023.

So intense was the ferocity of Desmond's takedown, the jaw-dropping return of Martin O'Neill was almost an after-thought.

Twenty years after his exit from the club, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an unending circuit of appearances and the playing of all his old hits at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a while. Considering things he has said lately, he has been eager to secure a new position. He'll see this one as the perfect opportunity, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he enjoyed such success and adulation.

Would he relinquish it readily? It seems unlikely. The club might well reach out to contact Postecoglou, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the moment.

All-out Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - as surreal as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the brutal way the shareholder described Rodgers.

It was a forceful endeavor at defamation, a labeling of him as untrustful, a source of falsehoods, a disseminator of misinformation; disruptive, misleading and unjustifiable. "One individual's wish for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who prizes decorum and places great store in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, this was another example of how unusual situations have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the organization's most powerful presence, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the individual with the authority to make all the major decisions he pleases without having the obligation of justifying them in any public forum.

He never attend club annual meetings, dispatching his offspring, his son, instead. He rarely, if ever, does media talks about the team 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 club with confidential messages to media organisations, but no statement is made in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to be. And that's exactly what he contradicted when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the club is that he resigned, but reading Desmond's criticism, carefully, you have to wonder why he allow it to get this far down the line?

If the manager is culpable of all of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's guilty of, then it's fair to ask why was the manager not removed?

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

He claims Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a toxic atmosphere around the team and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the management and the board. Some of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

What an extraordinary allegation, that is. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we discuss.

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

To return to better days, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Rodgers respected Dermot and, really, to no one other.

It was Desmond who drew the heat when Rodgers' returned happened, after the previous manager.

This marked the most divisive appointment, the reappearance of the returning hero for some supporters or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the return of the shameless one, who left them in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Over time, the manager employed the charm, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an uneasy peace with the fans turned into a love-in again.

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

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired once more, with added intensity, over the last year. He spoke openly about the sluggish way Celtic went about their transfer business, the endless waiting for targets to be landed, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Time and again he stated about the necessity for what he termed "flexibility" in the transfer window. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the club splurged record amounts of money in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the significant Auston Trusty - all of whom have cut it so far, with one already having left - Rodgers pushed for more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in public.

He set a controversy about a lack of cohesion within the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent media briefing he would typically downplay it and almost reverse what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, all are united, he'd say. It looked like he was playing a dangerous game.

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that purportedly originated from a insider associated with the club. It said that Rodgers was damaging Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was orchestrating his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be present and he was engineering his way out, this was the tone of the story.

Supporters were angered. They now saw him as similar to a martyr who might be removed on his shield because his directors wouldn't support his vision to bring triumph.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it accomplished. He called for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be dismissed. Whether there was a examination then we heard no more about it.

At that point it was plain Rodgers was losing the backing of the individuals in charge.

The regular {gripes