🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour following Celtic released the announcement of their manager's shock departure via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the bombshell landed, courtesy of the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in obvious anger.

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

The man he persuaded to join the club when their rivals were gaining ground in that period and needed putting back in a box. And the man he once more turned to after the previous manager departed to Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

Such was the ferocity of Desmond's critique, the jaw-dropping return of the former boss was practically an after-thought.

Two decades after his departure from the organization, and after a large part of his latter years was given over to an unending circuit of appearances and the playing of all his old hits at Celtic, O'Neill is back in the dugout.

Currently - and perhaps for a while. Based on things he has expressed recently, O'Neill has been eager to get a new position. He'll view this role as the perfect opportunity, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a return to the place where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Would he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club could possibly reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but the new appointment will serve as a soothing presence for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - as surreal as it is - can be set aside because the biggest 'wow!' development was the harsh way the shareholder described Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded attempt at defamation, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a spreader of falsehoods; divisive, misleading and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For a person who values propriety and places great store in business being done with discretion, if not complete privacy, here was a further illustration of how abnormal things have become at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's dominant figure, operates in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the authority to make all the important decisions he pleases 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 rarely, if ever, gives interviews about the team unless they're hagiographic in tone. And still, he's reluctant to speak out.

He has been known on an occasion or two to support the organization with private messages to news outlets, but no statement is made in the open.

This is precisely how he's wanted it to remain. And it's exactly what he went against when launching full thermonuclear on the manager on Monday.

The official line from the club is that he resigned, but reviewing his criticism, carefully, you have to wonder why did he allow it to reach such a critical point?

Assuming Rodgers is guilty of every one of the accusations that the shareholder is claiming he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to ask why was the manager not removed?

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

He claims his words "have contributed to a hostile environment around the club and encouraged animosity towards individuals of the executive team and the board. Some of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been completely unjustified and improper."

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

'Rodgers' Ambition Clashed with the Club's Strategy Again

To return to happier times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers lauded Desmond at every turn, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, truly, to no one other.

This was the figure who drew the criticism when his returned occurred, after the previous manager.

This marked the most divisive appointment, the reappearance of the prodigal son for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Gradually, Rodgers employed the charm, achieved the wins and the honors, and an fragile peace with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship again.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a point when Rodgers' ambition came in contact with the club's operational approach, though.

It happened in his initial tenure and it happened once more, with bells on, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the sluggish process the team conducted their transfer business, the endless delay for prospects to be landed, then missed, as was too often the situation as far as he was concerned.

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

Despite the organization spent unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the costly Adam Idah and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have cut it to date, with one since having left - Rodgers pushed for more and more and, often, he did it in public.

He planted a bomb about a internal disunity within the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his next news conference he would typically minimize it and nearly reverse what he said.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It looked like he was engaging in a risky game.

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that allegedly came from a source associated with the club. It said that Rodgers was damaging the team with his public outbursts and that his true aim was managing his exit strategy.

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

Supporters were angered. They now viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his board members did not back his vision to bring triumph.

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

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

The regular {gripes