🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour following the club issued the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a perfunctory short statement, the howitzer arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in apparent fury.

In an extensive statement, key investor Dermot Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

The man he persuaded to come to the team when their rivals were getting uppity in 2016 and required being back in a box. And the man he once more turned to after Ange Postecoglou left for Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

Such was the severity of Desmond's takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was practically an secondary note.

Two decades after his exit from the organization, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an unending series of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at the team, Martin O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a time. Based on things he has expressed lately, O'Neill has been eager to secure another job. He will view this one as the ultimate chance, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the place where he experienced such success and adulation.

Will he give it up readily? It seems unlikely. The club might well make a call to contact Postecoglou, but O'Neill will act as a balm for the moment.

All-out Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's return - as surreal as it is - can be parked because the biggest shocking moment was the brutal manner the shareholder described Rodgers.

This constituted a full-blooded attempt at character assassination, a branding of him as untrustful, a source of untruths, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "A single person's desire for self-interest at the cost of others," wrote he.

For a person who values propriety and places great store in business being done with discretion, if not complete secrecy, this was another example of how abnormal things have grown at Celtic.

Desmond, the organization's most powerful presence, operates in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the power to take all the major calls he wants without having the obligation of explaining them in any open setting.

He never attend team AGMs, dispatching his son, his son, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives interviews about the team unless they're hagiographic in tone. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an rare moment to support the club with confidential messages to news outlets, but no statement is made in public.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to remain. And it's exactly what he contradicted when going full thermonuclear on the manager on Monday.

The official line from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading Desmond's criticism, line by line, one must question why did he allow it to reach this far down the line?

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

Desmond has accused him of spinning information in public that were inconsistent with reality.

He says Rodgers' words "played a part to a toxic environment around the team and encouraged animosity towards members of the management and the board. A portion of the criticism directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unjustified and unacceptable."

Such an remarkable allegation, indeed. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we speak.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Strategy Again

Looking back to happier times, they were tight, the two men. The manager praised the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Rodgers deferred to him and, truly, to nobody else.

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

This marked the most divisive appointment, the return of the returning hero for some supporters or, as other supporters would have described it, the return of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

Desmond had his back. Over time, the manager employed the charm, achieved the victories and the honors, and an fragile peace with the supporters became a love-in again.

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

This occurred in his initial tenure and it happened again, with added intensity, over the last year. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow way the team conducted their transfer business, the endless waiting for targets to be secured, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was concerned.

Repeatedly he spoke about the need for what he called "flexibility" in the market. Supporters concurred with him.

Even when the organization splurged unprecedented sums of money in a calendar year on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the significant further acquisition - none of whom have cut it so far, with one already having departed - the manager pushed for more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He planted a bomb about a lack of cohesion within the team and then distanced himself. When asked about his comments at his next media briefing he would usually minimize it and almost contradict what he said.

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

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly came from a insider close to the organization. It said that Rodgers was harming the team 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 exit, this was the implication of the article.

Supporters were enraged. They then saw him as similar to a martyr who might be carried out on his honor because his directors wouldn't support his plans to bring success.

The leak was poisonous, naturally, and it was meant to harm Rodgers, which it accomplished. He called for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be dismissed. If there was a examination then we heard nothing further about it.

At that point it was clear the manager was shedding the support of the individuals in charge.

The frequent {gripes