🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes after Celtic released the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the bombshell landed, from the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in obvious fury.

Through an extensive statement, major shareholder Dermot Desmond savaged his old chum.

This individual he convinced to come to the team when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and required being in their place. And the figure he again turned to after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of Desmond's takedown, the astonishing return of Martin O'Neill was practically an secondary note.

Two decades after his departure from the organization, and after a large part of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous series of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a while. Based on comments he has said recently, he has been keen to get another job. He will view this role as the ultimate opportunity, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the place where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Will he relinquish it readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but the new appointment will serve as a soothing presence for the moment.

All-out Effort at Character Assassination

O'Neill's return - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the most significant shocking development was the harsh way the shareholder wrote of the former manager.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of him as untrustful, a source of untruths, a disseminator of misinformation; disruptive, misleading and unjustifiable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the cost of others," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who values propriety and sets high importance in business being conducted with discretion, if not complete secrecy, here was another example of how unusual situations have become at the club.

Desmond, the club's most powerful figure, operates in the background. The remote leader, the one with the power to make all the important decisions he wants without having the obligation of justifying them in any open setting.

He never participate in club annual meetings, sending his son, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about the team unless they're glowing in tone. And still, he's slow to communicate.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the club with confidential missives to news outlets, but nothing is heard in public.

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

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

Assuming Rodgers is guilty of all of the accusations that Desmond is alleging he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to inquire why was the coach not removed?

Desmond has accused him of spinning things in public that were inconsistent with the facts.

He claims his words "played a part to a toxic environment around the team and fuelled hostility towards members of the management and the board. Some of the abuse aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unjustified and unacceptable."

Such an extraordinary allegation, that is. Lawyers might be preparing as we discuss.

His Ambition Conflicted with Celtic's Strategy Again

Looking back to happier times, they were close, the two men. The manager lauded Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Rodgers respected him and, truly, to nobody else.

This was the figure who took the criticism when his comeback happened, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive appointment, the return of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have put it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, Rodgers employed the charm, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the supporters turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

There was always - always - going to be a moment when Rodgers' ambition clashed with the club's business model, though.

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired again, with bells on, recently. Rodgers publicly commented about the slow process Celtic conducted their transfer business, the interminable waiting for targets to be secured, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Time and again he stated about the need for what he called "agility" in the market. Supporters concurred with him.

Even when the club splurged record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the costly another player and the significant Auston Trusty - all of whom have cut it to date, with Idah already having departed - the manager demanded increased resources and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He planted a bomb about a internal disunity inside the club and then walked away. When asked about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would typically downplay it and nearly reverse what he stated.

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

A few months back there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly came from a source associated with the organization. It claimed that Rodgers was harming Celtic with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was orchestrating his exit strategy.

He desired not to be there and he was engineering his exit, this was the tone of the article.

Supporters were enraged. They then saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his shield because his board members did not support his vision to bring success.

The leak was damaging, of course, and it was intended to harm him, which it did. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a examination then we learned no more about it.

At that point it was clear the manager was losing the support of the people above him.

The regular {gripes