🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following the club issued the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the howitzer landed, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in apparent anger.

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

This individual he persuaded to come to the team when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and required being in their place. Plus the figure he again turned to after the previous manager departed to Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

Such was the severity of his critique, the astonishing return of the former boss was practically an after-thought.

Twenty years after his departure from the club, and after a large part of his latter years was dedicated to an unending circuit of appearances and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is back in the dugout.

For now - and maybe for a while. Based on comments he has expressed lately, O'Neill has been keen to secure another job. He will view this one as the ultimate opportunity, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and praise.

Will he give it up readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic might well reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but the new appointment will serve as a soothing presence for the moment.

All-out Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

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

It was a forceful endeavor at defamation, a labeling of him as untrustful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-interest at the cost of others," stated Desmond.

For a person who values propriety and places great store in business being conducted with discretion, if not outright secrecy, this was another example of how abnormal situations have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's dominant figure, moves in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the power to make all the important decisions he pleases without having the obligation of explaining them in any open setting.

He does not attend team AGMs, sending his offspring, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, does interviews about the team unless they're glowing in tone. And even then, he's slow to speak out.

He has been known on an occasion or two to support the organization with confidential messages to news outlets, but nothing is made in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to be. And it's exactly what he went against when going full thermonuclear on the manager on that day.

The directive from the team is that he stepped down, but reading his invective, carefully, you have to wonder why he allow it to get this far down the line?

Assuming the manager is guilty of all of the accusations that the shareholder is alleging he's guilty of, then it's fair to ask why was the manager not dismissed?

He has accused him of distorting information in public that were inconsistent with reality.

He claims his words "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the club and encouraged hostility towards members of the executive team and the directors. Some of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and unacceptable."

What an extraordinary allegation, indeed. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

His Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Strategy Once More'

Looking back to happier days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. The manager praised the shareholder at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Rodgers respected him and, really, to nobody else.

It was Desmond who drew the criticism when his returned happened, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive appointment, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have put it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, the manager employed the persuasion, delivered the victories and the honors, and an uneasy peace with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a moment when Rodgers' goals clashed with Celtic's operational approach, though.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with added intensity, over the last year. Rodgers spoke openly about the sluggish way Celtic went about their player acquisitions, the interminable delay for targets to be secured, then missed, as was too often the case as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he spoke about the need for what he called "agility" in the market. Supporters concurred with him.

Despite the club splurged record amounts of money in a twelve-month period on the expensive one signing, the £9m another player and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have cut it to date, with one already having departed - the manager demanded increased resources and, often, he did it in openly.

He set a controversy about a internal disunity inside the club and then distanced himself. When asked about his comments at his subsequent news conference he would usually minimize it and nearly reverse what he said.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It appeared like Rodgers was playing a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that purportedly came from a source associated with the organization. It claimed that the manager was damaging the team with his public outbursts and that his true aim was managing his exit strategy.

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

The fans were enraged. They then viewed him as similar to a martyr who might be removed on his honor because his board members wouldn't back his vision to achieve success.

This disclosure was damaging, naturally, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it accomplished. He demanded for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

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

The frequent {gripes