🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour following Celtic released the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a perfunctory short communication, the bombshell arrived, from the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in apparent anger.

In an extensive statement, major shareholder Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

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 again turned to after Ange Postecoglou departed to another club in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of his critique, the astonishing return of the former boss was almost an after-thought.

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after a large part of his recent life was given over to an continuous series of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at the team, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Considering things he has said lately, O'Neill has been eager to get a new position. He will see this one as the perfect opportunity, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the place where he enjoyed such success and adulation.

Would he relinquish it readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well reach out to contact their ex-manager, but the new appointment will act as a balm for the time being.

All-out Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - as surreal as it is - can be parked because the most significant shocking moment was the brutal way the shareholder wrote of Rodgers.

It was a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of him as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; disruptive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "One individual's desire for self-preservation at the expense of everyone else," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who values propriety and sets high importance in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, this was another example of how abnormal situations have become at Celtic.

Desmond, the organization's dominant figure, operates in the margins. The absentee totem, the individual with the power to make all the major calls he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He does not attend club annual meetings, dispatching his offspring, his son, in his place. He seldom, if ever, does media talks about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in tone. And even then, he's slow to communicate.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the club with private messages to media organisations, but no statement is made in public.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to be. And that's exactly what he went against when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on Monday.

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

Assuming the manager is guilty of all of the things that the shareholder is alleging he's guilty of, then it's fair to inquire why was the coach not removed?

He has charged him of spinning things in public that did not tally with reality.

He claims Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the club and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unjustified and unacceptable."

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

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

Looking back to happier days, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded Desmond at every turn, thanked him every chance. Rodgers respected him and, truly, to nobody else.

It was Desmond who drew the criticism when Rodgers' returned happened, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most divisive appointment, the reappearance of the prodigal son for a few or, as other supporters would have put it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the lurch for another club.

Desmond had Rodgers' back. Gradually, Rodgers employed the charm, achieved the wins and the trophies, and an uneasy peace with the fans became a affectionate relationship again.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a moment when his goals came in contact with Celtic's operational approach, however.

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired once more, with bells on, over the last year. He spoke openly about the sluggish process the team went about their transfer business, the interminable delay for prospects to be landed, then missed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was believed.

Time and again he stated about the need for what he termed "agility" in the transfer window. The fans agreed with him.

Even when the organization splurged unprecedented sums of money in a twelve-month period on the expensive one signing, the costly another player and the significant Auston Trusty - none of whom have cut it to date, with one already having left - the manager pushed for more and more and, often, he did it in public.

He planted a controversy about a internal disunity inside the club and then distanced himself. When asked about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would usually downplay it and nearly contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It appeared like Rodgers was playing a dangerous game.

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that purportedly originated from a source associated with the organization. It claimed that the manager was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his true aim was orchestrating his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be present and he was engineering his exit, that was the tone of the article.

Supporters were enraged. They now saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his directors wouldn't support his plans to achieve success.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was intended to hurt him, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. Whether there was a probe then we learned nothing further about it.

By then it was plain the manager was losing the backing of the people above him.

The frequent {gripes