Simon Jordan Defends Dermot Desmond in Fiery Rodgers Fallout

Simon Jordan has leapt to the defence of Dermot Desmond after the Celtic principal shareholder’s public attack on Brendan Rodgers, but his comments have done little to ease the sense that both men have missed the bigger picture.

Desmond’s statement, accusing Rodgers of being “divisive” and “self-serving”, was already seen by many as needlessly personal and damaging to Celtic’s image. Now Jordan’s decision to praise it as “fair and true” only adds to the noise around a club already struggling for direction.

In defending Desmond, the pundit argued that principal shareholder’s are too often left voiceless while managers “control the narrative”.

But this take ignores the fact that Celtic’s hierarchy already hold all the power, and with that power comes responsibility. Airing grievances in public only made a bad situation worse, creating the impression of a divided and reactive leadership.

He said: (talkSPORT), “I was very interested to read Dermot Desmond’s statement; it actually made me laugh when I first read it.

“I thought ‘shapo, Dermot. Well done.’ Because, too many times, these managers, including Steve Bruce (in the talkSPORT studios), say what they want, when they want, and how they want. And there is no recourse. There is always this, ‘I will wear this hat.’

“Always this idea that people aren’t getting what they want. They haven’t been given the support. The popular narrative is played out because the manager gets the voice, and the owners don’t.

“Well done to Dermot. He must have been particularly irritated to have taken that step, because he hasn’t missed, has he!

“It’s only character assassination if it doesn’t happen to be fair and true. I had said, about a week ago, after Brendan had come out talking about ‘Honda Civics’, and that sort of nonsense. If I were in Dermot’s shoes, I would have given him a smack, metaphorically. And here’s the smack.

“He isn’t going to allow Brendan to see the narrative, in amongst the fans, that ‘I am not happy with the obvious performance of the team.’

“But also not happy with the lack of qualification, which was, by the way, entirely on Brendan and his team. Whether they were given more support or not is incidental. They had a good enough team to beat that pub side.”

Jordan’s comments might appeal to those who enjoy the bluntness of his punditry, but in this case, his defence of Desmond rings hollow. The Celtic principal shareholder’s outburst was less about truth and more about control, an attempt to shape the story after weeks of silence and poor decisions.

Instead of showing leadership, Desmond chose to fight in public, and Jordan has applauded him for it. Yet what Celtic needed was restraint and focus on fixing the problems Rodgers left behind, not a public feud that drags the club into deeper turmoil.

For all his experience as an owner, Jordan should know better than to mistake noise for authority. And for Desmond, the episode only reinforces the criticism that he acts like a remote powerbroker rather than a steady leader.

The outcome is the same either way: Celtic look fractured at the top, distracted off the pitch, and still no closer to addressing the structural problems that caused this mess in the first place.