🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following Celtic issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising resignation via a brief five-paragraph communication, the bombshell arrived, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious fury.

Through 551-words, major shareholder Dermot Desmond savaged his old chum.

This individual he convinced to join the team when their rivals were getting uppity in 2016 and needed putting in their place. And the figure he once more relied on after Ange Postecoglou left for Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

So intense was the ferocity of his critique, the jaw-dropping return of Martin O'Neill was practically an secondary note.

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an continuous circuit of appearances and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is back in the dugout.

Currently - and perhaps for a while. Based on comments he has said lately, he has been eager to secure a new position. He'll see this one as the ultimate chance, a gift from the club's legacy, a return to the place where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

Will he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club could possibly make a call to contact their ex-manager, but the new appointment will act as a balm for the time being.

All-out Effort at Character Assassination

The new manager's return - however strange as it is - can be set aside because the most significant shocking moment was the harsh way the shareholder described the former manager.

It was a forceful endeavor at defamation, a labeling of him as untrustful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-preservation at the expense of everyone else," wrote he.

For somebody who prizes decorum and sets high importance in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, here was another illustration of how unusual things have become at Celtic.

The major figure, the organization's most powerful figure, operates in the background. The absentee totem, the one with the power to make all the major calls he wants without having the obligation of explaining them in any public forum.

He does not participate in club annual meetings, sending his son, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, gives interviews about the team unless they're hagiographic in nature. And still, he's slow to communicate.

There have been instances on an rare moment to defend the organization with confidential messages to news outlets, but no statement is heard in the open.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to be. And it's exactly what he contradicted when going all-out attack on the manager on Monday.

The directive from the team is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading his criticism, carefully, you have to wonder why he permit it to reach this far down the line?

If Rodgers is guilty of every one of the things that Desmond is claiming he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to ask why had been the manager not dismissed?

Desmond has accused him of spinning things in public that did not tally with the facts.

He claims his words "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the team and fuelled animosity towards members of the executive team and the board. Some of the criticism directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unwarranted and unacceptable."

Such an remarkable allegation, that is. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Conflicted with Celtic's Strategy Once More'

Looking back to better times, they were tight, the two men. The manager lauded the shareholder at every turn, thanked him every chance. Brendan deferred to him and, really, to no one other.

This was the figure who drew the heat when his returned happened, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive appointment, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as other supporters would have put it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Gradually, Rodgers employed the charm, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the supporters became a affectionate relationship again.

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

This occurred in his initial tenure and it happened once more, with bells on, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow process the team conducted their player acquisitions, the interminable delay for targets to be secured, then missed, as was frequently the case as far as he was concerned.

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

Even when the club splurged unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the significant further acquisition - none of whom have cut it to date, with one already having departed - Rodgers demanded increased resources and, often, he did it in openly.

He set a controversy about a internal disunity within the club and then walked away. When asked about his remarks at his next media briefing he would typically minimize it and nearly contradict what he said.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, all are united, he'd say. It appeared like he was playing a risky game.

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that purportedly came from a source associated with the organization. It claimed that the manager was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his true aim was orchestrating his departure plan.

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

The fans were angered. They then saw him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his shield because his directors did not back his plans to achieve triumph.

This disclosure was damaging, naturally, and it was intended to harm him, which it accomplished. He called for an investigation and for the guilty person to be removed. If there was a examination then we heard no more about it.

By then it was plain the manager was shedding the support of the individuals in charge.

The regular {gripes