🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour after Celtic issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a brief five-paragraph statement, the bombshell landed, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in obvious anger.

Through an extensive statement, key investor Desmond savaged his former ally.

This individual he convinced to come to the team when their rivals were gaining ground in that period and required being back in a box. Plus the figure he once more relied on after the previous manager left for another club in the summer of 2023.

Such was the severity of his takedown, the astonishing comeback of Martin O'Neill was practically an after-thought.

Two decades after his exit 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 returned in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a while. Considering things he has said recently, O'Neill has been eager to get another job. He will see this one as the perfect chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the place where he enjoyed such glory and praise.

Would he relinquish it easily? It seems unlikely. Celtic could possibly reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but the new appointment will serve as a soothing presence for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the biggest shocking development was the brutal way Desmond described the former manager.

This constituted a forceful attempt at defamation, a labeling of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, misleading and unacceptable. "One individual's desire for self-preservation at the cost of others," stated Desmond.

For somebody who values propriety and places great store in business being done with discretion, if not complete secrecy, this was a further illustration of how abnormal things have become at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's dominant presence, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the power to take all the major decisions he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He does not attend club annual meetings, sending his son, Ross, instead. He seldom, if ever, does interviews about Celtic unless they're glowing in nature. And even then, he's slow to speak out.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to support the organization with confidential messages to news outlets, but no statement is heard in public.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to be. And it's exactly what he went against when launching all-out attack on the manager on that day.

The directive from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading his criticism, carefully, one must question why did he permit it to get such a critical point?

Assuming the manager is guilty of every one of the accusations that Desmond is alleging he's responsible for, then it's fair to ask why had been the coach not removed?

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

He says his words "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the club and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the management and the board. A portion of the criticism directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unjustified and improper."

Such an remarkable allegation, that is. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we speak.

His Ambition Clashed with Celtic's Model Again

To return to better days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded Desmond at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Rodgers deferred to him and, truly, to no one other.

This was the figure who took the heat when his comeback happened, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most divisive hiring, the reappearance of the returning hero for some supporters or, as other supporters would have described it, the return of the shameless one, who left them in the lurch for Leicester.

Desmond had his back. Over time, Rodgers turned on the charm, achieved the wins and the honors, and an uneasy truce with the supporters became a love-in again.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a moment when Rodgers' ambition came in contact with Celtic's operational approach, however.

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with bells on, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the sluggish process Celtic went about their transfer business, the interminable waiting for targets to be secured, then missed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he spoke about the necessity for what he termed "agility" in the market. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the organization spent record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the costly another player and the significant further acquisition - none of whom have cut it to date, with one already having left - Rodgers pushed for increased resources and, oftentimes, he expressed this in public.

He planted a controversy about a internal disunity within the club and then distanced himself. When asked about his comments at his next media briefing he would usually downplay it and almost contradict what he stated.

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

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that allegedly originated from a source associated with the organization. It claimed that the manager was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his exit strategy.

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

Supporters were enraged. They now saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his shield because his board members did not support his plans to bring triumph.

This disclosure was damaging, naturally, and it was intended to harm Rodgers, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. If 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 people in charge.

The regular {gripes