🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes after the club issued the announcement of their manager's surprising departure via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the howitzer landed, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious fury.

Through an extensive statement, major shareholder Desmond savaged his old chum.

The man he persuaded to come to the team when their rivals were gaining ground in that period and needed putting back in a box. Plus the man he once more turned to after Ange Postecoglou left for another club in the summer of 2023.

Such was the severity of his critique, the jaw-dropping return of Martin O'Neill was practically an secondary note.

Twenty years after his departure from the club, and after a large part of his latter years was dedicated to an continuous circuit of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his old hits at the team, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a while. Considering things he has expressed lately, O'Neill has been eager to secure another job. He will view this one as the perfect chance, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the place where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Will he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club could possibly reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

O'Neill's reappearance - as surreal as it is - can be set aside because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the harsh manner the shareholder wrote of the former manager.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a labeling of him as deceitful, a source of untruths, a disseminator of falsehoods; disruptive, misleading and unjustifiable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the expense of others," stated Desmond.

For a person who prizes decorum and sets high importance in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete secrecy, here was another illustration of how unusual situations have become at Celtic.

Desmond, the club's most powerful figure, operates in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the authority to make all the major decisions he wants without having the obligation of explaining them in any public forum.

He does not attend team AGMs, dispatching his son, his son, instead. He rarely, if ever, gives media talks about the team unless they're hagiographic in nature. And still, he's slow to communicate.

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

This is precisely how he's wanted it to be. And it's just what he went against when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the team is that Rodgers stepped down, but reviewing his criticism, line by line, one must question why did he permit it to reach this far down the line?

If Rodgers is guilty of every one of the things that Desmond is claiming he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to inquire why had been the manager not dismissed?

He has accused him of distorting things in public that were inconsistent with the facts.

He says his words "played a part to a toxic atmosphere around the team and fuelled animosity towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. Some of the abuse aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

What an extraordinary allegation, that is. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we speak.

'Rodgers' Ambition Clashed with the Club's Strategy Once More'

Looking back to better days, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager praised the shareholder at every turn, thanked him every chance. Rodgers deferred to Dermot and, really, to nobody else.

It was the figure who took the heat when Rodgers' returned happened, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive hiring, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as some other supporters would have put it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Over time, the manager turned on the charm, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an uneasy peace with the fans turned into a love-in once more.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a point when Rodgers' ambition clashed with Celtic's business model, though.

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired again, with added intensity, recently. Rodgers publicly commented about the sluggish way Celtic conducted their transfer business, the interminable delay for targets to be secured, then missed, as was frequently the case as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he stated about the necessity for what he termed "flexibility" in the transfer window. Supporters concurred with him.

Even when the club splurged record amounts of funds in a calendar year on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have performed well so far, with one already having left - Rodgers demanded increased resources and, often, he expressed this in openly.

He set a controversy about a lack of cohesion inside the team and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his comments at his next news conference he would usually downplay it and nearly reverse what he said.

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

A few months back there was a story in a publication that allegedly originated from a source close to the organization. It said that the manager was damaging Celtic with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his departure plan.

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

The fans were enraged. They now viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his board members wouldn't back his vision to bring success.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was meant to harm Rodgers, which it did. He demanded for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. Whether there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

By then it was clear the manager was shedding the backing of the individuals in charge.

The frequent {gripes