🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following Celtic issued the news of their manager's surprising resignation via a brief five-paragraph statement, the howitzer landed, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious anger.

In an extensive statement, key investor Dermot Desmond savaged his old chum.

This individual he persuaded to come to the club when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and needed putting in their place. Plus the figure he again relied on after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

So intense was the ferocity of his critique, the jaw-dropping return of the former boss was practically an after-thought.

Twenty years after his departure from the club, and after a large part of his recent life was given over to an unending series of appearances and the playing of all his old hits at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Based on comments he has said recently, O'Neill has been eager to secure a new position. He'll view this role as the ultimate opportunity, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he experienced such success and praise.

Will he give it up easily? It seems unlikely. Celtic might well reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the time being.

All-out Effort at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - as surreal as it is - can be parked because the most significant shocking moment was the brutal way the shareholder wrote of Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of him as untrustful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, misleading and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-preservation at the cost of others," stated he.

For somebody who values propriety and sets high importance in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, this was a further example of how abnormal things have become at Celtic.

Desmond, the club's most powerful figure, operates in the background. The absentee totem, the individual with the authority to make all the major decisions he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He never participate in team AGMs, dispatching his son, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, does media talks about the team unless they're hagiographic in tone. And still, he's slow to speak out.

He has been known on an occasion or two to defend the organization with confidential missives to news outlets, but nothing is made in the open.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to remain. And it's just what he contradicted when going all-out attack on the manager on that day.

The official line from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading Desmond's criticism, line by line, one must question why did he permit it to get this far down the line?

If the manager is culpable of all of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to ask why was the coach not dismissed?

He has accused him of spinning information in open forums that did not tally with reality.

He claims his words "have contributed to a toxic atmosphere around the team and fuelled animosity towards individuals of the executive team and the board. A portion of the criticism directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unjustified and unacceptable."

Such an remarkable allegation, indeed. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we speak.

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

To return to happier days, they were close, the two men. The manager lauded the shareholder at every turn, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Brendan respected Dermot and, really, to no one other.

It was the figure who took the heat when his returned happened, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most controversial hiring, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as some other supporters would have described it, the return of the shameless one, who departed in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had his back. Over time, the manager employed the charm, achieved the wins and the honors, and an fragile truce with the fans became a love-in again.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a point when his ambition clashed with Celtic's business model, however.

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with added intensity, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the sluggish way Celtic went about their player acquisitions, the interminable waiting for prospects to be landed, then missed, as was frequently the case as far as he was believed.

Time and again he stated about the need for what he termed "agility" in the transfer window. The fans agreed with him.

Even when the organization splurged unprecedented sums of money in a calendar year on the expensive Arne Engels, the costly another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have cut it to date, with Idah already having left - the manager demanded increased resources and, often, he expressed this in openly.

He planted a bomb about a internal disunity within the team and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent news conference he would typically minimize it and almost contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It appeared like Rodgers was playing a risky game.

A few months back there was a story in a newspaper that purportedly came from a insider associated with the club. It claimed that Rodgers was damaging Celtic with his public outbursts and that his true aim was orchestrating his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be there and he was engineering his exit, this was the implication of the story.

The fans were angered. They then viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his directors did not back his plans to bring triumph.

This disclosure was poisonous, naturally, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be removed. Whether there was a examination then we heard no more about it.

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

The frequent {gripes