Chris Sutton has questioned why Dermot Desmond didn’t act sooner if the Celtic owner was so unhappy with Brendan Rodgers, calling the Irish billionaire’s public attack on the former manager “astonishing.”
Sutton was less surprised by Rodgers’ departure than by the tone and ferocity of Desmond’s statement, which accused the former boss of being “divisive” and “self-serving.” Sutton suggested that Desmond’s handling of the situation could make top managers think twice about taking the Celtic job in the future.
The former Celtic striker also questioned the contradictions between recent club messaging, which insisted there was no disconnect between Rodgers and the board — and the events that unfolded this week. He argued that if Desmond truly felt Rodgers had crossed the line, he should have taken decisive action earlier instead of allowing the relationship to deteriorate in public.
Sutton’s remarks reflect the growing feeling among supporters that Rodgers’ exit was mishandled from the top, with the fallout leaving serious questions about leadership and professionalism at boardroom level.
He said: (Sky Sports), “I don’t think it was such a surprise — Brendan leaving the club. I think the biggest surprise really was the astonishing attack on him from Dermot Desmond. You very rarely hear from Dermot Desmond, but he didn’t miss on that occasion. You know, he absolutely butchered Brendan. He, you know, he filleted him. And some people may like that sort of way that Dermot went about that. And they’d say he was straight and he was honest.
“I think that, you know, my view on that is you think further down the line, there may be high-profile managers who would look at the treatment of Rodgers and how vicious that attack was on Brendan Rodgers and think twice about maybe coming to Celtic and their reputations being damaged if there’s a fallout.
“So there is that in regards to his resignation. I think the writing felt like it was on the wall that he would part ways. Him resigning may be a little bit of a surprise. The one thing I can’t quite understand — if Dermot Desmond was unhappy with his conduct and communication for the previous couple of months, why didn’t he sack him then? Why didn’t he sack him earlier? I don’t know, that’s a question for Dermot, you know.
“But Brendan eventually felt that there was a need to step down. If Dermot was that unhappy, I mean, three weeks earlier, the club had a statement saying there wasn’t a disconnect between the manager and Brendan, that everything was rosy.”
Sutton’s criticism cuts to the heart of Celtic’s current turmoil. His suggestion that Desmond’s intervention could deter future managers is a sharp warning about the club’s image at the top level.
By publicly attacking Rodgers, Desmond may have won short-term approval from sections of the boardroom, but the move risks long-term damage to Celtic’s reputation in the wider football world.
The contrast between the club’s recent public assurances and the brutal nature of Rodgers’ exit raises uncomfortable questions about internal communication and decision-making.
As Sutton points out, if Desmond had lost faith in Rodgers, he had the authority to act. Instead, the delay and the manner of the fallout have left Celtic’s hierarchy facing more scrutiny than ever.
Keep Reading
One Response
I think it’s fair to say it’s easy for all the armchair pundits to sit feet up and criticize the decisions taken by those who are REALLY heavily invested in the club, both financially and emotionally, and not just as social media keyboard clickers!
But the truth is, everything that Dermot Desmond said about Rodgers had to be said! For far too long now Rodgers had it all one way, being the only one dishing out the one sided storylines, lies as it turned out, and insults towards his players, intended or otherwise. His toxic attitude caused more trouble at Celtic second time around than his walking away did first time. We should not have forgiven him from 2019!