🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following the club released the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a perfunctory short communication, the bombshell arrived, from the major shareholder, with clear signs in apparent anger.

In an extensive statement, key investor Desmond savaged his old chum.

This individual he persuaded to join the club when Rangers were getting uppity in 2016 and required being back in a box. And the figure he again relied on after Ange Postecoglou departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of his takedown, the astonishing comeback of the former boss was almost an after-thought.

Twenty years after his departure from the organization, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an unending circuit of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his old hits at the team, O'Neill is back in the dugout.

Currently - and perhaps for a time. Considering comments he has said recently, he has been keen to secure a new position. He will view this role as the ultimate chance, a gift from the club's legacy, a return to the place where he experienced such success and praise.

Will he relinquish it readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic might well reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but O'Neill will act as a soothing presence for the moment.

All-out Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest shocking moment was the brutal way the shareholder described Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful attempt at defamation, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of falsehoods, a disseminator of falsehoods; disruptive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-preservation at the expense of others," wrote Desmond.

For a person who values decorum and sets high importance in business being done with discretion, if not outright secrecy, this was another illustration of how abnormal things have become at the club.

The major figure, the club's most powerful presence, operates in the background. The remote leader, the individual with the power to make all the major calls he pleases without having the obligation of explaining them in any open setting.

He never attend team annual meetings, sending his offspring, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about the team unless they're glowing in nature. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

He has been known on an rare moment 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 remain. And that's just what he contradicted when going full thermonuclear on the manager on that day.

The official line from the club is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing Desmond's invective, carefully, one must question why he permit it to get this far down the line?

Assuming the manager is guilty of every one of the things that the shareholder is alleging he's guilty of, then it's fair to ask why was the coach not removed?

He has charged him of spinning things in public that were inconsistent with reality.

He claims his statements "have contributed to a toxic environment around the club and encouraged hostility towards members of the executive team and the board. Some of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unwarranted and improper."

What an extraordinary charge, indeed. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we discuss.

His Ambition Conflicted with the Club's Strategy Again

To return to better times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager praised the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Rodgers deferred to him and, truly, to no one other.

It was Desmond who took the heat when Rodgers' returned occurred, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most controversial hiring, the return of the returning hero for some supporters or, as other supporters would have put it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for Leicester.

Desmond had his support. Gradually, Rodgers turned on the persuasion, achieved the victories and the honors, and an fragile truce with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship again.

There was always - consistently - going to be a point when his ambition clashed with the club's operational approach, though.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it transpired again, with bells on, recently. He spoke openly about the sluggish process the team went about their transfer business, the endless delay for targets to be secured, then missed, as was frequently the case as far as he was believed.

Time and again he spoke about the need for what he termed "agility" in the market. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the club splurged record amounts of money in a twelve-month period on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well so far, with one already having departed - Rodgers demanded increased resources and, oftentimes, he did it in public.

He planted a controversy about a internal disunity within the club and then distanced himself. When asked about his remarks at his subsequent media briefing he would typically minimize it and almost contradict what he said.

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

A few months back there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly originated from a insider close to the club. It claimed that the manager was damaging the team with his public outbursts and that his true aim was orchestrating his departure plan.

He desired not to be present and he was engineering his way out, that was the implication of the story.

Supporters were enraged. They then saw him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his directors did not back his plans to bring triumph.

This disclosure was damaging, of course, and it was intended to harm Rodgers, which it accomplished. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. If there was a probe then we learned nothing further about it.

By then it was plain the manager was losing the support of the people in charge.

The regular {gripes