🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour after Celtic released the announcement of their manager's surprising resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the howitzer landed, courtesy of the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in obvious anger.

In 551-words, key investor Desmond savaged his old chum.

The man he persuaded to come to the team when Rangers were getting uppity in 2016 and needed putting back in a box. And the figure he once more turned to after the previous manager departed to Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

So intense was the ferocity of his takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was practically an secondary note.

Two decades after his exit from the club, and after much of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous series of appearances and the playing of all his old hits at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and maybe for a while. Considering comments he has expressed recently, he has been keen to secure another job. He will see this one as the ultimate chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the environment where he experienced such success and adulation.

Would he relinquish it readily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic might well reach out to contact their ex-manager, but the new appointment will act as a balm for the moment.

All-out Effort at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's return - as surreal as it may be - can be set aside because the most significant shocking moment was the brutal way the shareholder wrote of Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded attempt at defamation, a labeling of him as untrustful, a source of falsehoods, a disseminator of misinformation; disruptive, misleading and unacceptable. "A single person's desire for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," stated he.

For a person who values decorum and places great store in dealings being conducted with discretion, if not complete secrecy, here was another illustration of how abnormal situations have become at the club.

Desmond, the club's dominant presence, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the individual 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 participate in club annual meetings, sending his son, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, gives media talks about the team unless they're hagiographic in tone. And still, he's slow to speak out.

He has been known on an occasion or two to defend the organization with private missives to media organisations, but no statement is heard in public.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to remain. And it's just what he contradicted when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on that day.

The directive from the team is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing Desmond's criticism, line by line, you have to wonder why did he permit it to reach such a critical point?

If Rodgers is guilty of all of the things that Desmond is alleging he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to inquire why had been the manager not removed?

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

He says Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a toxic environment around the team and fuelled animosity towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. A portion of the abuse aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

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

His Aspirations Clashed with the Club's Strategy Again

Looking back to happier times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Brendan deferred to him and, truly, to nobody else.

This was Desmond who drew the criticism when Rodgers' comeback occurred, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most controversial hiring, the return of the returning hero for some supporters or, as some other Celtic fans would have put it, the return of the shameless one, who left them in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had his support. Over time, the manager turned on the persuasion, delivered the wins and the honors, and an uneasy peace with the supporters became a affectionate relationship again.

There was always - consistently - going to be a point when his goals came in contact with the club's business model, however.

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired once more, with bells on, over the last year. He spoke openly about the sluggish way Celtic went about their transfer business, the interminable waiting for prospects to be secured, then missed, as was frequently the case as far as he was concerned.

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

Despite the organization spent unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the expensive one signing, the costly another player and the significant Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well so far, with Idah already having left - the manager pushed for more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He set a bomb about a internal disunity inside the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent media briefing he would usually downplay it and almost contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, all are united, he'd say. It looked like he was engaging in a risky game.

A few months back there was a story in a newspaper that purportedly came from a source associated with the organization. It said that the manager was harming the team 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 way out, that was the implication of the story.

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

This disclosure was damaging, naturally, and it was meant to hurt him, which it did. He demanded for an investigation and for the guilty person to be removed. If there was a examination then we heard no more about it.

By then it was plain the manager was shedding the support of the people above him.

The regular {gripes