🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour after Celtic released the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the bombshell arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in obvious fury.

In 551-words, key investor Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

The man he persuaded to join the club when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and needed putting back in a box. And the figure he once more relied on after the previous manager departed to another club in the summer of 2023.

So intense was the ferocity of his takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of Martin O'Neill was practically an after-thought.

Two decades after his exit from the organization, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an unending series of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his old hits at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a while. Considering comments he has expressed lately, O'Neill has been keen to secure another job. He will see this one as the perfect chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the place where he experienced such success and adulation.

Will he relinquish it readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic 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 return - however strange as it is - can be parked because the most significant 'wow!' development was the harsh way the shareholder described Rodgers.

It was a forceful attempt at character assassination, a labeling of Rodgers as deceitful, a perpetrator of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, misleading and unacceptable. "A single person's wish for self-preservation at the expense of others," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who values propriety and places great store in business being done with confidentiality, if not complete secrecy, this was another example of how unusual situations have grown at the club.

The major figure, the club's most powerful figure, operates in the margins. The remote leader, the individual with the power to take all the major calls he pleases without having the obligation of explaining them in any open setting.

He does not attend club annual meetings, dispatching his son, Ross, instead. He seldom, if ever, does interviews about the team unless they're hagiographic in nature. And still, he's reluctant to speak out.

He has been known on an occasion or two to defend the organization with private missives to news outlets, but nothing is heard in public.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to be. And it's exactly what he went against when launching all-out attack on the manager on that day.

The directive from the team is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing Desmond's invective, carefully, one must question why did he allow it to get this far down the line?

Assuming the manager is guilty of all of the accusations that the shareholder is alleging he's guilty of, then it's fair to inquire why had been the manager not removed?

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

He says his words "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the team and encouraged animosity towards individuals of the management and the directors. A portion of the criticism directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unwarranted and unacceptable."

Such an extraordinary allegation, that is. Lawyers might be mobilising as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Ambition Conflicted with Celtic's Model Again

Looking back to happier times, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers lauded the shareholder at every turn, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, truly, to no one other.

This was the figure who took the criticism when Rodgers' comeback happened, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive hiring, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as other Celtic fans would have put it, the arrival of the shameless one, who departed in the difficulty for Leicester.

Desmond had his back. Gradually, Rodgers turned on the charm, delivered the wins and the honors, and an uneasy peace with the fans became a love-in again.

There was always - always - going to be a moment when his ambition came in contact with the club's operational approach, though.

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

Repeatedly he spoke about the need for what he called "agility" in the market. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the organization splurged unprecedented sums of money in a calendar year on the expensive one signing, the costly another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well to date, with Idah since having departed - the manager demanded increased resources and, often, he did it in openly.

He planted a controversy about a lack of cohesion inside the team and then walked away. Upon questioning about his comments at his subsequent news conference he would typically minimize it and almost reverse what he stated.

Internal issues? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It appeared like he was playing a dangerous game.

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly came from a insider associated with the organization. It said that Rodgers was harming Celtic with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was orchestrating his departure plan.

He desired not to be there and he was engineering his way out, this was the implication of the article.

Supporters were angered. They then viewed him as similar to a martyr who might be removed on his honor because his board members wouldn't support his vision to bring success.

The leak was damaging, of course, and it was meant to harm him, which it accomplished. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a probe then we learned nothing further about it.

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

The frequent {gripes