🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes after the club released the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' surprising resignation via a brief five-paragraph statement, the howitzer landed, courtesy of the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in apparent anger.

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

This individual he convinced to join the team when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and required being back in a box. And the man he again relied on after the previous manager departed to another club in the summer of 2023.

So intense was the severity of his takedown, the jaw-dropping return of Martin O'Neill was practically an secondary note.

Two decades after his exit from the organization, and after much of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous series of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at the team, O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a while. Based on comments he has said lately, O'Neill has been keen to get another job. He'll view this role as the ultimate chance, a gift from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the place where he experienced such glory and praise.

Will he give it up easily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but O'Neill will act as a soothing presence for the moment.

All-out Effort at Character Assassination

O'Neill's reappearance - as surreal as it may be - can be set aside because the most significant shocking moment was the brutal manner the shareholder wrote of the former manager.

This constituted a forceful attempt at character assassination, a labeling of Rodgers as untrustful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For a person who values propriety and places great store in business being done with confidentiality, if not outright privacy, here was another illustration of how unusual things have become at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's most powerful figure, moves in the background. The remote leader, the individual with the power to make all the major decisions he pleases without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He never attend team annual meetings, sending his son, Ross, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in tone. And still, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to support the organization with confidential missives to news outlets, but nothing is heard in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to be. And that's just what he went against when going all-out attack on Rodgers on Monday.

The official line from the team is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading Desmond's criticism, line by line, one must question why he allow it to get such a critical point?

If the manager is guilty of every one of the things that the shareholder is alleging he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to inquire why had been the coach not removed?

He has accused him of distorting things in public that were inconsistent with reality.

He says Rodgers' statements "played a part to a toxic environment around the club and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. Some of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unwarranted and improper."

What an extraordinary charge, that is. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we speak.

His Ambition Clashed with the Club's Model Once More'

To return to happier times, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. The manager praised Desmond at every turn, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Brendan respected him and, really, to no one other.

It was the figure who drew the heat when Rodgers' comeback happened, after the previous manager.

This marked the most divisive appointment, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as other supporters would have put it, the arrival of the shameless one, who departed in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had his back. Over time, Rodgers employed the charm, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the fans became a affectionate relationship again.

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

It happened in his initial tenure and it happened again, with added intensity, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the sluggish process Celtic went about their transfer business, the interminable waiting for prospects to be secured, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he spoke about the necessity for what he termed "agility" in the transfer window. Supporters agreed with him.

Despite the organization spent unprecedented sums of money in a calendar year on the £11m one signing, the costly Adam Idah and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have cut it so far, with one already having departed - the manager pushed for increased resources and, oftentimes, he did it in public.

He planted a bomb about a lack of cohesion inside the club and then walked away. Upon questioning about his remarks at his next news conference he would usually minimize it and nearly contradict what he said.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It appeared like he was engaging in a dangerous game.

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly came from a insider associated with the club. It claimed that Rodgers was harming the team with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was orchestrating his departure plan.

He didn't want to be present and he was arranging his exit, this was the implication of the story.

Supporters were enraged. They then viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his directors wouldn't support his vision to bring triumph.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to harm Rodgers, which it did. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a examination then we heard no more about it.

At that point it was plain Rodgers was losing the backing of the people in charge.

The regular {gripes