🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following the club issued the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the bombshell landed, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious anger.

In 551-words, key investor Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

This individual he persuaded to join the team when Rangers were getting uppity in 2016 and needed putting back in a box. Plus the man he again relied on after the previous manager departed to Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

Such was the ferocity of his takedown, the astonishing return of Martin O'Neill was practically an after-thought.

Two decades after his departure from the club, and after much of his recent life was given over to an continuous series of appearances and the performance of all his old hits at the team, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Based on comments he has said recently, O'Neill has been keen to secure a new position. He'll view this role as the perfect chance, a gift from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the place where he experienced such glory and praise.

Would he relinquish it easily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club could possibly make a call to sound out Postecoglou, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the moment.

'Full-blooded Effort at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - as surreal as it is - can be set aside because the biggest 'wow!' development was the brutal manner the shareholder wrote of the former manager.

This constituted a full-blooded attempt at defamation, a labeling of him as untrustful, a source of falsehoods, a disseminator of misinformation; divisive, misleading and unjustifiable. "One individual's wish for self-preservation at the expense of others," wrote Desmond.

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

The major figure, the club's dominant presence, operates in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the power to make all the important calls he wants without having the responsibility of explaining them in any open setting.

He does not participate in team annual meetings, sending his son, Ross, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in tone. And still, he's slow to speak out.

There have been instances on an rare moment to support the club with confidential messages to media organisations, but no statement is heard in the open.

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

The directive from the team is that he resigned, but reading his invective, carefully, you have to wonder why did he allow it to reach such a critical point?

If Rodgers is guilty of every one of the accusations that Desmond is claiming he's responsible for, then it's fair to inquire why was the manager not dismissed?

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

He says Rodgers' statements "played a part to a hostile environment around the team and encouraged animosity towards individuals of the executive team and the board. A portion of the criticism directed at them, and at their families, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

What an remarkable allegation, indeed. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we discuss.

His Ambition Clashed with the Club's Strategy Again

Looking back to happier times, they were tight, the two men. Rodgers lauded Desmond at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to him and, really, to no one other.

It was Desmond who drew the heat when his comeback happened, after the previous manager.

This marked the most divisive appointment, the return of the returning hero for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have described it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the lurch for another club.

Desmond had Rodgers' support. Over time, Rodgers employed the charm, delivered the wins and the honors, and an uneasy truce with the supporters became a affectionate relationship again.

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

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired once more, with added intensity, recently. Rodgers publicly commented about the sluggish process the team conducted their player acquisitions, the interminable waiting for prospects to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was concerned.

Repeatedly he spoke about the need for what he called "agility" in the transfer window. Supporters concurred with him.

Even when the organization splurged unprecedented sums of money in a twelve-month period on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have cut it so far, with one already having left - the manager demanded increased resources and, often, he expressed this in public.

He set a bomb about a internal disunity within the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would typically downplay it and nearly contradict what he said.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, all are united, he'd claim. It appeared like Rodgers was engaging in a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that purportedly originated from a insider associated with the organization. It claimed that the manager was harming Celtic with his public outbursts and that his true aim was orchestrating his exit strategy.

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

Supporters were enraged. They now saw him as similar to a martyr who might be removed on his honor because his directors did not support his plans to bring triumph.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was meant to harm him, which it did. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. If there was a examination then we heard nothing further about it.

By then it was clear Rodgers was shedding the support of the people in charge.

The regular {gripes