🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour after the club issued the news of their manager's shock departure via a perfunctory short statement, the bombshell arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious anger.

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

The man he convinced to come to the club when their rivals were getting uppity in 2016 and needed putting back in a box. Plus the figure he once more turned to after Ange Postecoglou departed to another club in the summer of 2023.

Such was the severity of Desmond's critique, the astonishing return of Martin O'Neill was practically an secondary note.

Twenty years after his departure from the organization, and after much of his recent life was dedicated to an unending circuit of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at the team, Martin O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

Currently - and perhaps for a time. Based on things he has said lately, he has been eager to get a new position. He will view this role as the perfect chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the place where he enjoyed such success and adulation.

Will he relinquish it easily? It seems unlikely. The club could possibly reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but O'Neill will serve as a balm for the moment.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's return - as surreal as it is - can be set aside because the most significant shocking moment was the harsh manner the shareholder described the former manager.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of him as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a disseminator of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "A single person's wish for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who values propriety and places great store in dealings being done with discretion, if not complete privacy, here was another example of how unusual things have grown at the club.

Desmond, the organization's dominant figure, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the authority to take all the important calls he wants without having the obligation of justifying them in any public forum.

He never participate in club AGMs, sending his son, Ross, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're glowing in tone. And even then, he's slow to speak out.

He has been known on an rare moment to defend the club with confidential messages to media organisations, but nothing is made in the open.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to remain. And that's just what he contradicted when going full thermonuclear on the manager on Monday.

The official line from the club is that he stepped down, but reading his invective, carefully, one must question why did he allow it to reach this far down the line?

If the manager is guilty of every one of the accusations that the shareholder is alleging he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to inquire why was the manager not removed?

He has accused him of distorting information in public that did not tally with the facts.

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

Such an remarkable charge, that is. Lawyers might be preparing as we discuss.

His Ambition Clashed with the Club's Model Again

Looking back to better times, they were close, the two men. The manager lauded the shareholder at every turn, thanked him every chance. Brendan respected Dermot and, really, to no one other.

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

It was the most divisive appointment, the reappearance of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have described it, the return of the shameless one, who departed in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had his back. Over time, Rodgers employed the charm, delivered the wins and the honors, and an fragile peace with the fans became a love-in again.

There was always - always - going to be a point when his ambition came in contact with Celtic's business model, though.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it happened once more, with added intensity, recently. He spoke openly about the slow process the team conducted their transfer business, the endless delay for targets to be secured, then not landed, as was too often the case as far as he was believed.

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

Despite the club spent record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the expensive Arne Engels, the costly another player and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have cut it to date, with Idah since having left - the manager pushed for more and more and, often, he expressed this in public.

He set a controversy about a internal disunity inside the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his comments at his next media briefing he would typically downplay it and almost contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It looked like Rodgers was engaging in a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly came from a insider close to the club. It said that Rodgers was damaging Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was orchestrating his departure plan.

He didn't want to be there and he was engineering his way out, that was the implication of the story.

Supporters were angered. They now saw him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his board members wouldn't support his vision to achieve triumph.

The leak was damaging, of course, and it was meant to harm him, which it accomplished. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. If there was a probe then we heard no more about it.

By then it was plain the manager was losing the backing of the individuals in charge.

The frequent {gripes