🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour following the club released the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising resignation via a perfunctory short communication, the bombshell landed, from the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious anger.

In an extensive statement, key investor Desmond savaged his former ally.

The man he persuaded to come to the team when their rivals were getting uppity in that period and required being in their place. And the man he again turned to after the previous manager left for another club in the summer of 2023.

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

Twenty years after his departure from the club, and after much of his latter years was given over to an continuous series of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is back in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a while. Considering comments he has said recently, O'Neill has been keen to get another job. He'll see this one as the perfect opportunity, a gift from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the environment where he experienced such success and praise.

Would he relinquish it readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - as surreal as it is - can be set aside because the most significant 'wow!' moment was the harsh manner the shareholder described Rodgers.

It was a forceful endeavor at defamation, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a perpetrator of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's desire for self-interest at the cost of others," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who prizes decorum and sets high importance in dealings being done with discretion, if not outright privacy, here was a further illustration of how unusual situations have become at the club.

Desmond, the organization's most powerful presence, operates in the background. The absentee totem, the individual with the authority to take all the major calls he pleases without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He never participate in team annual meetings, sending his son, Ross, instead. He rarely, if ever, gives interviews about the team unless they're hagiographic in tone. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the club with confidential messages to news outlets, but no statement is heard in public.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to remain. And it's just what he went against when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on Monday.

The official line from the team is that he resigned, but reading his criticism, line by line, one must question why he allow it to get this far down the line?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of all of the things that Desmond is alleging he's guilty of, then it's fair to inquire why had been the coach not removed?

Desmond has charged him of distorting things in public that did not tally with the facts.

He says Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the team and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the management and the directors. A portion of the abuse directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unjustified and improper."

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

His Aspirations Conflicted with the Club's Strategy Again

To return to happier times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers praised the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan respected him and, truly, to no one other.

This was the figure who drew the heat when Rodgers' comeback occurred, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive appointment, the reappearance of the returning hero for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Over time, Rodgers turned on the charm, delivered the victories and the honors, and an uneasy peace with the fans turned into a love-in again.

There was always - always - going to be a point when Rodgers' ambition came in contact with the club's business model, though.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it happened again, with bells on, over the last year. Rodgers spoke openly about the sluggish way the team went about their player acquisitions, the interminable waiting for targets to be secured, then missed, 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 concurred with him.

Even when the club spent record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m Arne Engels, the costly another player and the significant Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well so far, with Idah since having left - the manager pushed for more and more and, often, he did it in public.

He planted a bomb about a internal disunity within the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his comments at his next media briefing he would usually downplay it and nearly contradict what he stated.

Internal issues? Not at all, all are united, he'd say. It appeared like Rodgers was engaging in a risky strategy.

A few months back there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly came from a source close to the club. It claimed that the manager was damaging 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 engineering his exit, that was the implication of the article.

Supporters were angered. They now viewed him as similar to a martyr who might be carried out on his honor because his directors did not back his vision to bring success.

This disclosure was damaging, of course, and it was meant to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He called for an investigation and for the guilty person to be removed. Whether there was a examination then we learned nothing further about it.

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

The frequent {gripes