🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes following Celtic released the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a brief short communication, the howitzer arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in apparent anger.

Through 551-words, key investor Desmond savaged his former ally.

This individual he convinced to join the club when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and required being in their place. And the man he once more turned to after Ange Postecoglou departed to another club in the summer of 2023.

Such was the severity of his critique, the jaw-dropping return of the former boss was practically an after-thought.

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after much of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous series of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his past successes at the team, Martin O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Based on things he has said lately, he has been eager to secure a new position. He will view this role as the ultimate chance, a gift from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the environment where he experienced such success and adulation.

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

All-out Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - as surreal as it is - can be set aside because the most significant 'wow!' moment was the harsh manner the shareholder wrote of Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of Rodgers as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; disruptive, misleading and unacceptable. "One individual's desire for self-preservation at the expense of everyone else," stated he.

For a person who values decorum and sets high importance in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not outright privacy, this was a further example of how abnormal things have become at Celtic.

Desmond, the organization's most powerful figure, moves in the background. The absentee totem, the one with the power to take all the important decisions he pleases without having the obligation of justifying them in any open setting.

He never attend club AGMs, sending his offspring, Ross, in his place. He rarely, if ever, does media talks 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 defend the club with confidential messages to media organisations, but nothing is made in public.

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

The official line from the club is that Rodgers resigned, but reading his invective, line by line, one must question why did he allow it to reach this far down the line?

If Rodgers is culpable of every one of the things that Desmond is alleging he's responsible for, then it's fair to ask why had been the coach not dismissed?

He has accused him of distorting things in open forums that did not tally with reality.

He claims his words "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the team and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. Some of the criticism directed at them, and at their families, has been completely unjustified and unacceptable."

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

'Rodgers' Ambition Clashed with Celtic's Strategy Once More'

To return to happier times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded the shareholder at every turn, thanked him every chance. Rodgers deferred to Dermot and, truly, to nobody else.

This was Desmond who drew the criticism when his comeback occurred, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most controversial hiring, the return of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as some other supporters would have described it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had his back. Gradually, the manager turned on the persuasion, delivered the victories and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the fans turned into a love-in once more.

There was always - consistently - going to be a point when Rodgers' goals clashed with Celtic's operational approach, though.

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with bells on, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow way the team conducted their player acquisitions, the interminable delay for prospects to be landed, then missed, as was too often the situation as far as he was concerned.

Repeatedly he stated about the necessity for what he termed "flexibility" in the transfer window. Supporters concurred with him.

Despite the club spent record amounts of funds in a calendar year on the expensive one signing, the costly Adam Idah and the significant Auston Trusty - all of whom have performed well to date, with one since having left - Rodgers pushed for increased resources and, often, he did it in openly.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion inside the team and then distanced himself. When asked about his remarks at his subsequent news conference he would typically downplay it and almost reverse what he stated.

Internal issues? No, no, all are united, he'd claim. It looked like he was playing a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a story in a newspaper that allegedly originated from a insider close to the club. It claimed that the manager was damaging Celtic with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was managing his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be present and he was arranging his exit, that was the implication of the story.

The fans were enraged. They then viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his directors did not back his vision to bring success.

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

By then it was plain the manager was shedding the backing of the people above him.

The regular {gripes