🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour after Celtic released the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the bombshell landed, from Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in apparent fury.

Through an extensive statement, major shareholder Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

This individual he convinced to come to the team when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and needed putting back in a box. Plus the figure he once more relied on after the previous manager left for another club in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of his takedown, the astonishing return of the former boss was practically an secondary note.

Twenty years after his exit from the club, and after a large part of his recent life was given over to an continuous series of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is back in the dugout.

For now - and maybe for a time. Based on things he has said recently, he has been eager to get a new position. He'll view this role as the perfect opportunity, a present from the club's legacy, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

Would 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 balm for the moment.

All-out Effort at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the biggest shocking moment was the harsh manner the shareholder described the former manager.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of him as deceitful, a source of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-interest at the expense of others," stated Desmond.

For somebody who values propriety and sets high importance in business being done with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, this was another example of how unusual situations have grown at the club.

The major figure, the organization's dominant presence, moves in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the power to make all the major calls he wants without having the obligation of justifying them in any open setting.

He does not participate in team AGMs, sending his son, Ross, in his place. He rarely, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in tone. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

He has been known on an rare moment to defend the organization with confidential messages to news outlets, but no statement is made in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to remain. And it's just what he contradicted when launching all-out attack on the manager on that day.

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

If Rodgers is guilty of all of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to ask why was the manager not dismissed?

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

He says Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a hostile environment around the club and fuelled hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unjustified and unacceptable."

What an remarkable charge, that is. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Model Once More'

Looking back to happier times, they were tight, the two men. Rodgers lauded Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan respected Dermot and, truly, to nobody else.

This was the figure who drew the criticism when his returned occurred, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive appointment, the reappearance of the returning hero for some supporters or, as some other Celtic fans would have put it, the arrival of the shameless one, who departed in the difficulty for another club.

Desmond had his support. Gradually, Rodgers turned on the persuasion, delivered the victories and the trophies, and an uneasy peace with the supporters became a love-in once more.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a point when Rodgers' goals clashed with Celtic's business model, though.

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with added intensity, recently. He spoke openly about the slow process Celtic went about their transfer business, the interminable delay for targets to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the case as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he spoke about the necessity for what he called "flexibility" in the market. Supporters concurred with him.

Despite the organization splurged record amounts of funds in a calendar year on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have performed well so far, with one since having left - Rodgers pushed for more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion within the club and then distanced himself. When asked about his remarks at his next 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 he was playing a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that allegedly originated from a source associated with the organization. It said that the manager was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his true aim was managing his departure plan.

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

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

This disclosure was damaging, of course, and it was intended to harm him, which it did. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. Whether there was a examination then we heard nothing further about it.

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

The frequent {gripes