🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes after Celtic released the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a brief five-paragraph communication, the howitzer landed, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in apparent fury.

In 551-words, key investor Desmond savaged his former ally.

This individual he convinced to join the club when Rangers were getting uppity in that period and required being in their place. And the figure he again relied on after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

Such was the severity of Desmond's critique, the astonishing comeback of Martin O'Neill was practically an after-thought.

Twenty years after his departure from the organization, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an unending series of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his old hits at the team, Martin O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

For now - and perhaps for a while. Based on things he has expressed lately, he has been eager to secure a new position. He will see this one as the ultimate chance, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the place where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

Will 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.

All-out Effort at Character Assassination

O'Neill's return - however strange as it is - can be set aside because the most significant 'wow!' development was the harsh way Desmond described the former manager.

This constituted a forceful attempt at character assassination, a labeling of him as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, misleading and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," wrote he.

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

Desmond, the club's dominant presence, operates in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the authority to make all the important decisions he pleases without having the responsibility of explaining them in any public forum.

He never attend team AGMs, sending his offspring, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're glowing in nature. And still, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to defend the club 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 that's just what he went against when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on Monday.

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

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of every one of the accusations that Desmond is claiming he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to inquire why was the manager not removed?

Desmond has charged him of distorting information in open forums that were inconsistent with reality.

He claims his statements "played a part to a toxic environment around the club and encouraged hostility towards members of the management and the directors. A portion of the abuse aimed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unjustified and unacceptable."

Such an remarkable charge, that is. Lawyers might be mobilising as we speak.

His Ambition Conflicted with the Club's Model Again

To return to happier times, they were close, the two men. Rodgers praised the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan respected Dermot and, truly, to nobody else.

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

It was the most controversial hiring, the return of the returning hero for some supporters or, as some other supporters would have described it, the arrival of the shameless one, who departed in the lurch for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Gradually, Rodgers employed the charm, achieved the wins and the honors, and an uneasy peace with the fans became a affectionate relationship once more.

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

This occurred in his initial tenure and it happened once more, with added intensity, over the last year. Rodgers publicly commented about the sluggish process the team conducted their transfer business, the interminable waiting for targets to be secured, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was concerned.

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

Despite the club spent unprecedented sums of money in a twelve-month period on the £11m Arne Engels, the costly Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have cut it so far, with one already having departed - Rodgers pushed for increased resources and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He planted a controversy about a internal disunity within the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his comments at his next media briefing he would typically downplay it and nearly reverse what he stated.

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

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that purportedly originated from a insider close to the club. It claimed that the manager was damaging the team with his open criticisms and that his true aim was managing his departure plan.

He didn't want to be there and he was arranging his way out, this was the implication of the story.

Supporters were angered. They now viewed him as akin to a martyr who might be carried out on his shield because his directors wouldn't back his vision to bring triumph.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was meant to harm Rodgers, which it did. He demanded for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a examination then we learned no more about it.

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

The regular {gripes