🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes after Celtic issued the news of their manager's surprising departure via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the howitzer arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in apparent fury.

Through 551-words, major shareholder Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

The man he persuaded to join the team when their rivals were gaining ground in that period and needed putting back in a box. And the figure he once more relied on after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

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

Two decades after his departure from the club, and after a large part of his recent life was given over 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.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Based on things he has expressed recently, O'Neill has been keen to get another job. He'll see this role as the ultimate chance, a gift from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the place where he experienced such success and adulation.

Would he relinquish it easily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic might well reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the moment.

All-out Effort at Character Assassination

The new manager's return - however strange as it is - can be parked because the biggest shocking development was the harsh way the shareholder described Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a branding of him as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a disseminator of misinformation; disruptive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "One individual's desire for self-preservation at the cost of others," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who values decorum and places great store in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, this was a further illustration of how abnormal things have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's dominant presence, moves in the background. The remote leader, the one with the authority to take all the important calls he pleases without having the obligation of explaining them in any open setting.

He does not participate in club annual meetings, dispatching his offspring, his son, instead. He rarely, if ever, does media talks about the team unless they're hagiographic in nature. And even then, he's slow to communicate.

He has been known on an occasion or two to support the club with confidential messages to news outlets, but nothing is made in the open.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to be. And it's exactly what he contradicted when launching full thermonuclear on the manager on Monday.

The directive from the team is that he stepped down, but reviewing Desmond's invective, carefully, you have to wonder why did he permit it to get this far down the line?

Assuming the manager is culpable of all of the accusations that Desmond is claiming he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to inquire why had been the coach not removed?

Desmond has charged him of spinning information in public that did not tally with reality.

He claims Rodgers' statements "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the club and fuelled hostility towards members of the executive team and the directors. Some of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been completely unwarranted and unacceptable."

What an extraordinary allegation, that is. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

His Aspirations Conflicted with Celtic's Strategy Once More'

To return to better days, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded Desmond at every turn, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Brendan deferred to him and, truly, to no one other.

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

It was the most controversial hiring, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the arrival of the shameless one, who departed in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had his support. Over time, the manager turned on the charm, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the fans turned into a love-in again.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a point when Rodgers' ambition clashed with the club's business model, however.

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired once more, with added intensity, over the last year. He publicly commented about the sluggish process Celtic conducted their transfer business, the endless waiting for prospects to be landed, then missed, as was too often the case as far as he was concerned.

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

Despite the organization splurged record amounts of funds in a calendar year on the expensive one signing, the costly Adam Idah and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well to date, with Idah already having left - Rodgers demanded increased resources and, often, he did it in openly.

He planted a bomb about a lack of cohesion within the club and then walked away. Upon questioning about his comments at his next media briefing he would typically minimize it and nearly reverse what he said.

Internal issues? Not at all, all are united, he'd say. It looked like he was playing a dangerous game.

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that purportedly originated from a insider associated with the club. It claimed that the manager was damaging the team with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was managing his exit strategy.

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

The fans were angered. They now viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his shield because his directors did not support his plans to achieve triumph.

The leak was poisonous, naturally, and it was intended to harm Rodgers, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a probe then we learned no more about it.

By then it was plain the manager was losing the support of the people in charge.

The frequent {gripes