🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour following Celtic released the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the howitzer arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in apparent fury.

In 551-words, major shareholder Dermot Desmond savaged his old chum.

This individual he persuaded to come to the team when Rangers were getting uppity in 2016 and required being back in a box. Plus the man he once more relied on after Ange Postecoglou left for another club in the summer of 2023.

Such was the severity of Desmond's takedown, the jaw-dropping return of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

Twenty years after his departure from the organization, and after a large part of his recent life was given over to an unending circuit of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Considering things he has expressed recently, O'Neill has been keen to get another job. He'll view this role as the perfect opportunity, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a return to the place where he experienced such success and praise.

Will he give it up readily? It seems unlikely. The club could possibly make a call to sound out Postecoglou, but the new appointment will serve as a soothing presence for the moment.

'Full-blooded Effort at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's reappearance - as surreal as it is - can be parked because the biggest 'wow!' development was the harsh manner the shareholder described Rodgers.

This constituted a full-blooded attempt at character assassination, a labeling of him as deceitful, a perpetrator of untruths, a spreader of falsehoods; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "A single person's desire for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," stated he.

For a person who values propriety and places great store in business being conducted with discretion, if not outright secrecy, here was a further illustration of how unusual things have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the organization's most powerful presence, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the power to take all the major decisions he wants without having the responsibility of explaining them in any public forum.

He never participate in club annual meetings, dispatching his offspring, Ross, instead. He seldom, if ever, does interviews about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in nature. And even then, he's slow to communicate.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to defend the club with private messages to news outlets, but nothing is heard in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to be. And that's exactly what he contradicted when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on Monday.

The official line from the team is that he stepped down, but reviewing Desmond's criticism, carefully, one must question why did he permit it to reach this far down the line?

If the manager is culpable of every one of the things that Desmond is alleging he's responsible for, then it's fair to ask why was the coach not removed?

He has accused him of distorting information in open forums that were inconsistent with reality.

He says his statements "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the team and encouraged animosity towards individuals of the management and the directors. Some of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been completely unjustified and improper."

What an remarkable charge, indeed. Lawyers might be mobilising as we speak.

His Ambition Clashed with the Club's Model Again

Looking back to happier times, they were close, the two men. Rodgers praised the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Rodgers respected him and, truly, to no one other.

This was Desmond who took the heat when his comeback happened, post-Postecoglou.

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

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, Rodgers employed the persuasion, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the supporters turned into a affectionate relationship again.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a point when Rodgers' goals clashed with the club's business model, though.

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired again, with bells on, over the last year. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow way Celtic went about their player acquisitions, the endless delay for targets to be landed, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was concerned.

Repeatedly he spoke about the necessity for what he termed "flexibility" in the transfer window. The fans concurred with him.

Despite the organization spent unprecedented sums of money in a calendar year on the expensive one signing, the £9m another player and the significant Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well to date, with Idah already having departed - Rodgers demanded more and more and, often, he did it in openly.

He set a controversy about a internal disunity within the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would usually minimize it and almost reverse what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, all are united, he'd claim. It looked like Rodgers was engaging in a risky game.

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that allegedly came from a insider close to the organization. It said that Rodgers was harming the team with his open criticisms and that his true aim was orchestrating his departure plan.

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

The fans were angered. They then viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his directors wouldn't back his vision to bring success.

The leak was poisonous, naturally, and it was meant to harm him, which it did. He called for an investigation and for the guilty person to be removed. If there was a probe then we learned nothing further about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was shedding the support of the individuals above him.

The regular {gripes