🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following Celtic released the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' surprising resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the bombshell landed, from the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in apparent anger.

Through 551-words, key investor Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

The man he persuaded to come to the club when Rangers were getting uppity in 2016 and needed putting in their place. Plus the figure he again turned to after Ange Postecoglou departed to Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

Such was the ferocity of his takedown, the astonishing comeback of the former boss was practically an secondary note.

Twenty years after his departure from the organization, and after a large part of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous series of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his past successes at the team, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a while. Based on things he has said lately, he has been eager to secure another job. He will view this one as the ultimate chance, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the place where he enjoyed such glory and praise.

Would he give it up easily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic could possibly make a call to sound out their ex-manager, but O'Neill will act as a soothing presence for the time being.

All-out Attempt at Character Assassination

O'Neill's reappearance - however strange as it is - can be set aside because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the brutal way Desmond described the former manager.

This constituted a full-blooded attempt at character assassination, a labeling of him as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a spreader of falsehoods; divisive, misleading and unacceptable. "A single person's desire for self-preservation at the expense of others," stated Desmond.

For a person who values propriety and sets high importance in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete secrecy, this was a further illustration of how unusual things have become at the club.

The major figure, the club's dominant figure, moves in the margins. The remote leader, the individual with the power to take all the important calls he pleases without having the responsibility of justifying them in any open setting.

He never participate in club AGMs, dispatching his offspring, Ross, instead. He rarely, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're glowing in tone. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

He has been known on an rare moment to defend the club with private missives to media organisations, but nothing is heard in the open.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to be. And that's exactly what he went against when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the club is that he stepped down, but reviewing Desmond's invective, line by line, you have to wonder why did he allow it to reach such a critical point?

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

He has accused him of spinning information in open forums that were inconsistent with the facts.

He claims Rodgers' words "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the team and fuelled animosity towards members of the executive team and the board. A portion of the criticism directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unwarranted and improper."

What an remarkable allegation, that is. Lawyers might be preparing as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Ambition Conflicted with Celtic's Model Once More'

Looking back to better days, they were close, the two men. The manager lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Rodgers deferred to Dermot and, truly, to nobody else.

It was the figure who drew the criticism when Rodgers' returned happened, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most controversial appointment, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as other Celtic fans would have put it, the arrival of the shameless one, who departed in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had his support. Over time, Rodgers turned on the persuasion, delivered the victories and the honors, and an uneasy peace with the supporters became a love-in once more.

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

This occurred in his initial tenure and it transpired once more, with added intensity, over the last year. He publicly commented about the slow process the team went about their player acquisitions, the interminable delay for targets to be secured, then not landed, as was frequently the case as far as he was concerned.

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

Even when the club spent record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m Arne Engels, the costly Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have performed well to date, with one since having departed - the manager demanded more and more and, often, he expressed this in openly.

He set a bomb about a internal disunity within the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his next news conference he would usually downplay it and almost contradict what he said.

Internal issues? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It looked like Rodgers was engaging in a dangerous game.

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that purportedly came from a source associated with the organization. It said that the manager was damaging Celtic with his public outbursts and that his true aim was managing his departure plan.

He desired not to be present and he was arranging his exit, that was the tone of the article.

Supporters were angered. They now saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his directors did not support his vision to achieve success.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was intended to harm him, which it did. He demanded for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be removed. If there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

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

The regular {gripes