🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes after the club issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a brief short communication, the howitzer arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in obvious anger.

In 551-words, major shareholder Dermot Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

The man he convinced to join the team when their rivals were gaining ground in that period and required being back in a box. And the figure he again turned to after Ange Postecoglou left for Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

So intense was the ferocity of Desmond's critique, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was almost an after-thought.

Two decades after his exit from the organization, and after a large part of his latter years was dedicated to an unending series of appearances and the performance of all his old hits at the team, O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

Currently - and perhaps for a time. Considering things he has said recently, O'Neill has been eager to get a new position. He'll view this one as the ultimate opportunity, a present from the club's legacy, a return to the place where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

Would he relinquish it easily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club could possibly reach out to contact Postecoglou, but the new appointment will act as a soothing presence for the time being.

'Full-blooded Effort at Character Assassination

O'Neill's return - as surreal as it may be - can be set aside because the most significant shocking development was the brutal way the shareholder described Rodgers.

It was a forceful endeavor at defamation, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a perpetrator of untruths, a disseminator of misinformation; divisive, misleading and unjustifiable. "A single person's desire for self-preservation at the cost of others," stated he.

For somebody who values propriety and places great store in dealings being conducted with discretion, if not outright secrecy, here was a further example of how unusual situations have grown at the club.

Desmond, the club's most powerful figure, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the power to take all the major decisions he wants without having the obligation of explaining them in any public forum.

He does not attend team AGMs, dispatching his son, his son, in his place. He seldom, if ever, does interviews about the team unless they're glowing in tone. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

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

It's exactly how he's preferred it to be. And that's just what he contradicted when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the club is that Rodgers resigned, but reading his criticism, line by line, one must question why did he allow it to get such a critical point?

If the manager is guilty of all of the accusations that Desmond is claiming he's responsible for, then it's fair to inquire why had been the manager not dismissed?

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

He says Rodgers' words "have contributed to a toxic atmosphere around the club and encouraged hostility towards members of the management and the directors. Some of the abuse aimed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unwarranted and improper."

What an extraordinary charge, that is. Lawyers might be mobilising as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Ambition Clashed with Celtic's Strategy Again

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

It was Desmond who took the criticism when his comeback happened, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most divisive hiring, the reappearance of the prodigal son for a few or, as some other supporters would have described it, the return of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had his support. Gradually, Rodgers turned on the persuasion, delivered the victories and the honors, and an uneasy peace with the supporters became a love-in once more.

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

This occurred in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with added intensity, over the last year. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow process the team went about their transfer business, the interminable waiting for prospects to be secured, then not landed, as was frequently the case as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he spoke about the need for what he termed "agility" in the transfer window. The fans concurred with him.

Despite the club splurged unprecedented sums of money in a twelve-month period on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the significant Auston Trusty - none of whom have cut it so far, with one already having departed - the manager demanded increased resources and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He set a controversy about a lack of cohesion within the team and then walked away. When asked about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would usually minimize it and almost contradict what he stated.

Internal issues? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It looked like he was playing a dangerous strategy.

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that allegedly originated from a insider close to the club. It claimed that Rodgers was damaging Celtic with his public outbursts and that his true aim was managing his departure plan.

He desired not to be present and he was arranging his exit, that was the implication of the story.

The fans were angered. They now saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his shield because his board members wouldn't back his plans to bring triumph.

The leak was poisonous, naturally, and it was intended to harm him, which it accomplished. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a examination then we heard nothing further about it.

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

The frequent {gripes