🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour after Celtic issued the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' surprising resignation via a perfunctory short communication, the howitzer arrived, from the major shareholder, with clear signs in apparent fury.

In 551-words, major shareholder Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

This individual he convinced to come to the team when their rivals were getting uppity in 2016 and required being in their place. Plus the man he once more turned to after Ange Postecoglou left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

So intense was the severity of his critique, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

Two decades after his departure from the club, and after much of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous series of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his old hits at Celtic, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Based on things he has said recently, he has been eager to secure a new position. He will see this role as the perfect opportunity, a gift from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the place where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

Would he relinquish it readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well reach out to contact their ex-manager, but the new appointment will act as a soothing presence for the time being.

'Full-blooded Effort at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the brutal manner Desmond wrote of the former manager.

This constituted a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a branding of Rodgers as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, misleading and unjustifiable. "A single person's desire for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," stated he.

For somebody who values decorum and sets high importance in business being done with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, here was another illustration of how unusual things have become at the club.

The major figure, the club's most powerful figure, operates in the background. The absentee totem, the one with the authority to take all the important decisions he pleases without having the obligation of explaining them in any open setting.

He does not attend team annual meetings, dispatching his son, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in tone. And still, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to support the club with private messages to media organisations, but nothing is heard in public.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to remain. And it's just what he contradicted when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the club is that he stepped down, but reviewing Desmond's criticism, line by line, you have to wonder why he allow it to get this far down the line?

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

He has charged him of spinning information in open forums that were inconsistent with reality.

He says Rodgers' words "have contributed to a toxic atmosphere around the team and fuelled animosity towards members of the management and the directors. Some of the criticism directed at them, and at their families, has been completely unjustified and unacceptable."

What an remarkable allegation, that is. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we speak.

His Ambition Clashed with the Club's Model Once More'

Looking back to happier days, they were close, the two men. The manager praised the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to him and, truly, to nobody else.

This was Desmond who drew the heat when Rodgers' comeback happened, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive hiring, the reappearance of the returning hero for a few or, as other supporters would have put it, the return of the shameless one, who departed in the lurch for another club.

Desmond had his support. Gradually, Rodgers employed the persuasion, achieved the victories and the honors, and an fragile peace with the fans became a love-in once more.

There was always - always - going to be a point when Rodgers' ambition came in contact with Celtic's business model, though.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it happened again, with added intensity, over the last year. He spoke openly about the sluggish process the team went about their player acquisitions, the endless waiting for prospects to be secured, then missed, as was frequently the case as far as he was concerned.

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

Even when the organization spent record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have performed well to date, with one already having left - Rodgers demanded more and more and, often, he expressed this in openly.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion inside the team and then distanced himself. When asked about his comments at his subsequent news conference he would typically minimize it and nearly contradict what he said.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, all are united, he'd say. It looked like Rodgers was playing a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that allegedly originated from a source close to the organization. It said that the manager was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his departure plan.

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

The fans were enraged. They then saw him as similar to a martyr who might be removed on his honor because his directors wouldn't back his vision to bring success.

This disclosure was poisonous, naturally, and it was intended to harm him, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. Whether there was a examination then we learned nothing further about it.

At that point it was clear Rodgers was losing the support of the people in charge.

The regular {gripes