🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour following Celtic issued the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a perfunctory short statement, the bombshell arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in apparent fury.

In an extensive statement, major shareholder Dermot Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

This individual he convinced to join the team when their rivals were gaining ground in that period and needed putting back in a box. Plus the figure he once more turned to after Ange Postecoglou departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of Desmond's critique, the astonishing comeback of Martin O'Neill was practically an after-thought.

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after much of his recent life was given over to an unending series of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a while. Based on comments he has expressed recently, he has been keen to secure another job. He'll view this one as the perfect chance, a gift from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the place where he experienced such success and praise.

Will he give it up readily? It seems unlikely. The club could possibly reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but the new appointment will act as a balm for the time being.

All-out Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - as surreal as it is - can be parked because the biggest shocking moment was the brutal way the shareholder described the former manager.

It was a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a branding of Rodgers as untrustful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a spreader of misinformation; disruptive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-interest at the cost of everyone else," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who values decorum and places great store in business being done with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, this was a further example of how unusual things have grown at the club.

Desmond, the club's most powerful presence, moves in the background. The remote leader, 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 does not participate in club AGMs, dispatching his son, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, does media talks about the team unless they're glowing in tone. And still, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an rare moment to support the club with private missives to media organisations, but nothing is heard in the open.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to remain. And that's just what he went against when launching full thermonuclear on the manager on that day.

The directive from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading his invective, line by line, you have to wonder why he permit it to get this far down the line?

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

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

He claims Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the club and encouraged hostility towards members of the management and the directors. Some of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been completely unjustified and unacceptable."

Such an remarkable allegation, indeed. Lawyers might be mobilising as we speak.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Model Again

Looking back to better days, they were close, the two men. The manager praised the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Rodgers deferred to him and, really, to nobody else.

It was Desmond who drew the criticism when Rodgers' returned occurred, after the previous manager.

This marked the most controversial appointment, the return of the returning hero for some supporters or, as some other supporters would have put it, the return of the shameless one, who left them in the lurch for Leicester.

Desmond had Rodgers' back. Gradually, Rodgers employed the charm, achieved the wins and the honors, and an uneasy truce with the supporters became a love-in once more.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a moment when his goals came in contact with the club's business model, though.

It happened in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with added intensity, over the last year. He spoke openly about the slow way Celtic conducted their transfer business, the interminable waiting for targets to be landed, then missed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he spoke about the need for what he termed "agility" in the market. Supporters concurred with him.

Despite the organization spent unprecedented sums of money in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the £9m another player and the significant further acquisition - none of whom have performed well to date, with Idah already having left - the manager pushed for increased resources and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion inside the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would typically downplay it and nearly contradict what he said.

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

A few months back there was a story in a newspaper that purportedly originated from a insider associated with the club. It said that Rodgers was harming Celtic with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was orchestrating his departure plan.

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

Supporters were angered. They then viewed him as akin to a martyr who might be removed on his honor because his directors did not back his plans to bring triumph.

The leak was poisonous, of course, and it was meant to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

At that point it was clear Rodgers was shedding the support of the people in charge.

The regular {gripes