🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following Celtic issued the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' surprising resignation via a perfunctory short communication, the howitzer arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious anger.

Through 551-words, major shareholder Dermot Desmond savaged his former ally.

This individual he convinced to join the team when their rivals were getting uppity in that period and required being in their place. And the figure he once more turned to after Ange Postecoglou left for another club in the summer of 2023.

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

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after much of his latter years was given over to an continuous series of appearances and the performance of all his past successes at the team, Martin O'Neill is back in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a while. Considering comments he has expressed lately, O'Neill has been eager to get another job. He'll view this role as the ultimate chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the place where he experienced such glory and adulation.

Would he give it up readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic might well make a call to sound out their ex-manager, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - as surreal as it may be - can be parked because the most significant 'wow!' moment was the brutal way Desmond wrote of the former manager.

It was a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a branding of him as deceitful, a source of untruths, a spreader of falsehoods; divisive, misleading and unacceptable. "A single person's desire for self-interest at the cost of everyone else," wrote he.

For a person who prizes decorum and sets high importance in dealings being done with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, this was a further illustration of how abnormal situations have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's dominant figure, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the power to make all the important calls he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He never attend club AGMs, dispatching his offspring, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, does interviews about the team unless they're hagiographic in tone. And still, he's slow to speak out.

There have been instances on an rare moment to defend the club with private 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 launching all-out attack on Rodgers on that day.

The directive from the club is that Rodgers resigned, but reading Desmond's criticism, line by line, one must question why did he permit it to reach this far down the line?

If the manager is culpable of all of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to inquire why was the coach not dismissed?

Desmond has accused him of spinning information in open forums that did not tally with reality.

He claims his words "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the club and fuelled animosity towards individuals of the management and the board. A portion of the abuse aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

Such an remarkable charge, indeed. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Ambition Clashed with the Club's Strategy Once More'

Looking back to happier days, they were tight, the two men. The manager praised the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan respected him and, really, to no one other.

It was Desmond who took the heat when Rodgers' returned happened, after the previous manager.

This marked the most divisive hiring, the reappearance of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have put it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the lurch for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Over time, the manager employed the charm, delivered the victories and the honors, and an uneasy truce with the supporters became a love-in again.

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

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired again, with added intensity, over the last year. He spoke openly about the slow process Celtic went about their transfer business, the interminable delay for targets to be secured, then missed, as was frequently the case as far as he was concerned.

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

Despite the organization splurged record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the expensive one signing, the £9m Adam Idah and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well to date, with Idah already having left - Rodgers pushed for increased resources and, often, he did it in openly.

He set a controversy about a lack of cohesion inside the club and then walked away. Upon questioning about his comments at his subsequent news conference he would usually downplay it and nearly contradict what he said.

Internal issues? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It looked like he was playing a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that allegedly originated from a insider close to the organization. It said that Rodgers was harming Celtic with his public outbursts and that his true aim was orchestrating his departure plan.

He didn't want to be there and he was engineering his exit, this was the implication of the article.

The fans were enraged. They now viewed 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.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it accomplished. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual 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 backing of the individuals above him.

The frequent {gripes