🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour after the club released the announcement of their manager's surprising departure via a brief short statement, the bombshell landed, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious anger.

In an extensive statement, major shareholder Dermot Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

The man he convinced to come to the club when Rangers were gaining ground in that period and required being back in a box. Plus the man he once more turned to after Ange Postecoglou left for Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

Such was the severity of Desmond's takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of Martin O'Neill was almost an after-thought.

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after a large part of his latter years was dedicated to an continuous series of appearances and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Based on comments he has expressed lately, O'Neill has been keen to secure a new position. He will see this role as the perfect opportunity, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the place where he experienced such success and adulation.

Would he give it up easily? It seems unlikely. Celtic could possibly make a call to sound out their ex-manager, but the new appointment will act as a balm for the moment.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest 'wow!' development was the brutal manner Desmond described Rodgers.

It was a forceful attempt at character assassination, a labeling of him as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a spreader of falsehoods; disruptive, deceptive and unacceptable. "A single person's desire for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For somebody who prizes decorum and places great store in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete secrecy, this was a further illustration of how unusual things have become at Celtic.

Desmond, the organization's most powerful presence, moves in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the power to take all the important decisions he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any open setting.

He never attend team AGMs, dispatching his son, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, does media talks about the team unless they're glowing in tone. And even then, he's slow to speak out.

There have been instances on an rare moment to defend the club with confidential messages to media organisations, but nothing is heard in public.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to remain. And it's exactly what he contradicted when going full thermonuclear on the manager on Monday.

The directive from the team is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing Desmond's invective, line by line, one must question why did he allow it to get such a critical point?

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

Desmond has charged him of distorting information in public that were inconsistent with the facts.

He says his statements "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the club and encouraged animosity towards members of the executive team and the board. A portion of the abuse aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

What an extraordinary charge, that is. Lawyers might be preparing as we discuss.

His Aspirations Conflicted with Celtic's Strategy Again

To return to better days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers praised Desmond at every turn, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Brendan respected him and, truly, to nobody else.

It was the figure who drew the criticism when his returned occurred, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most divisive appointment, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as other supporters would have put it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the lurch for Leicester.

The shareholder had his back. Over time, the manager turned on the persuasion, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the supporters turned into a love-in once more.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a moment when his ambition clashed with the club's business model, though.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with added intensity, over the last year. Rodgers publicly commented about the slow way the team went about their player acquisitions, the interminable delay for targets to be landed, then not landed, as was too often the case as far as he was believed.

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

Despite the club spent record amounts of funds in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have cut it to date, with Idah already having departed - the manager demanded more and more and, often, he expressed this in openly.

He planted a controversy about a internal disunity within the team and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent media briefing he would typically downplay it and nearly contradict what he said.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, all are united, he'd claim. It appeared like Rodgers was playing a risky strategy.

A few months back there was a story in a publication that purportedly originated from a insider associated with the club. It claimed that the manager was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his departure plan.

He desired not to be present and he was arranging his exit, this 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 honor because his board members did not support his plans to bring triumph.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a examination then we learned nothing further about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was losing the support of the individuals in charge.

The frequent {gripes