🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour after Celtic released the news of their manager's shock departure via a perfunctory short communication, the howitzer arrived, from the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in obvious anger.

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

This individual he convinced to join the club when their rivals were gaining ground in that period and required being in their place. Plus the figure he again relied on after the previous manager departed to another club in the summer of 2023.

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

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after a large part of his latter years was given over to an continuous circuit of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his past successes at the team, O'Neill is back in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a while. Considering comments he has expressed recently, he has been eager to get a new position. He will view this one as the perfect opportunity, a present from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he enjoyed such success and adulation.

Will he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic might well reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the moment.

All-out Effort at Character Assassination

O'Neill's return - as surreal as it is - can be set aside because the most significant shocking development was the brutal way Desmond described the former manager.

It was a full-blooded attempt at defamation, a labeling of Rodgers as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a disseminator of falsehoods; disruptive, misleading and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-preservation at the expense of others," wrote he.

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

Desmond, the club's dominant presence, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the authority to make all the major decisions he wants without having the obligation of explaining them in any open setting.

He never attend team annual meetings, sending his offspring, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, does media talks about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in tone. And even then, he's reluctant to communicate.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to defend the organization with confidential missives to media organisations, but no statement is heard in the open.

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

The directive from the team is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing Desmond's criticism, line by line, you have to wonder why he permit it to get such a critical point?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of every one of the accusations that Desmond is alleging he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to inquire why was the manager not dismissed?

Desmond has charged him of distorting things in public that were inconsistent with reality.

He claims Rodgers' words "played a part to a hostile environment around the club and fuelled hostility towards members of the management and the directors. Some of the criticism directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

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

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

Looking back to better days, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers praised Desmond at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Brendan respected him and, truly, to no one other.

It was Desmond who took the criticism when Rodgers' comeback happened, after the previous manager.

It was the most controversial hiring, the reappearance of the prodigal son for a few or, as 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' support. Over time, Rodgers employed the charm, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the fans became a love-in once more.

There was always - consistently - going to be a moment when Rodgers' goals came in contact with Celtic's operational approach, however.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it happened once more, with added intensity, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow way the team conducted their transfer business, the interminable delay for prospects to be landed, then missed, as was frequently the case as far as he was believed.

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

Despite the organization splurged record amounts of money in a twelve-month period on the expensive Arne Engels, the costly another player and the significant further acquisition - none of whom have performed well so far, with Idah already having left - the manager demanded more and more and, often, he did it in public.

He set a controversy about a internal disunity within the team and then walked away. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent media briefing he would typically minimize it and almost contradict what he said.

Internal issues? Not at all, all are united, he'd claim. It appeared like he was playing a risky strategy.

A few months back there was a story in a publication that allegedly came from a source close to the organization. It claimed that Rodgers was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was orchestrating his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be there and he was engineering his way out, that was the implication of the article.

The fans were angered. They now saw him as akin to a martyr who might be removed on his shield because his board members wouldn't back his vision to achieve triumph.

This disclosure was damaging, naturally, and it was meant to hurt Rodgers, which it accomplished. He called for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be dismissed. If there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

By then it was clear Rodgers was shedding the support of the individuals in charge.

The regular {gripes