🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour following the club issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the howitzer landed, courtesy of the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in obvious anger.

Through 551-words, key investor Dermot Desmond savaged his old chum.

The man he convinced to come to the team when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and required being back in a box. Plus the man he again relied on after Ange Postecoglou left for another club in the summer of 2023.

Such was the ferocity of his critique, the jaw-dropping comeback of Martin O'Neill was almost an secondary note.

Twenty years after his departure from the organization, and after much of his recent life was dedicated to an unending series of appearances and the playing of all his old hits at the team, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

Currently - and perhaps for a while. Based on things he has said lately, he has been keen to secure another job. He'll see this one as the ultimate chance, a present from the club's legacy, a return to the environment where he experienced such success and praise.

Would he relinquish it easily? It seems unlikely. The club could possibly reach out to contact Postecoglou, but the new appointment will act as a balm for the time being.

All-out Attempt at Character Assassination

O'Neill's reappearance - however strange as it is - can be set aside because the biggest 'wow!' development was the harsh manner Desmond wrote of Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of him as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, misleading and unjustifiable. "One individual's desire for self-interest at the cost of others," stated Desmond.

For a person who values decorum and sets high importance in dealings being done with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, this was a further example of how unusual things have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the organization's most powerful presence, moves in the background. The remote leader, the individual with the authority to take all the important decisions he pleases without having the responsibility of justifying them in any open setting.

He never participate in team annual meetings, sending his offspring, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, does media talks about the team unless they're glowing in tone. And even then, 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 made in the open.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to be. And that's exactly what he went against when going all-out attack on the manager on Monday.

The directive from the club is that he stepped down, but reading Desmond's invective, line by line, one must question why he permit it to get this far down the line?

If Rodgers is guilty of all of the things that Desmond is alleging he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to inquire why had been the coach not dismissed?

He has charged him of distorting information in public that were inconsistent with the facts.

He claims his statements "have contributed to a toxic atmosphere around the club and encouraged animosity towards members of the executive team and the directors. Some of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been completely unjustified and unacceptable."

Such an extraordinary charge, indeed. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

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

To return to happier days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers lauded Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, truly, to nobody else.

It was Desmond who drew the heat when his 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 supporters would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Over time, the manager turned on the persuasion, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the supporters became a love-in once more.

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

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

Repeatedly he stated about the need for what he called "agility" in the transfer window. Supporters agreed with him.

Despite the organization splurged unprecedented sums of funds in a twelve-month period on the expensive one signing, the costly Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have performed well so far, with one since having left - the manager pushed for increased resources and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He planted a controversy about a internal disunity within the team and then walked away. When asked about his remarks at his subsequent news conference he would usually minimize it and almost contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, all are united, he'd say. It looked like Rodgers was engaging in a risky game.

A few months back there was a story in a newspaper that purportedly came from a source close to the club. It claimed that Rodgers was damaging Celtic with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was managing his departure plan.

He didn't want to be present and he was arranging his way out, this was the tone of the article.

The fans were enraged. They then viewed him as akin to a martyr who might be removed on his honor because his board members wouldn't support his plans to achieve triumph.

This disclosure was damaging, naturally, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He demanded for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a examination then we heard nothing further about it.

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

The regular {gripes