🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour following Celtic released the news of their manager's shock resignation via a brief five-paragraph communication, the howitzer landed, courtesy of the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in apparent anger.

In an extensive statement, major shareholder Desmond savaged his old chum.

This individual he persuaded to join the club when Rangers were gaining ground in that period and needed putting in their place. Plus the figure he again turned to after Ange Postecoglou departed to another club in the summer of 2023.

Such was the severity of Desmond's takedown, the astonishing return of Martin O'Neill was practically an secondary note.

Two decades after his departure from the organization, and after a large part of his recent life was given over to an continuous circuit of appearances and the performance of all his past successes at the team, Martin O'Neill is back in the dugout.

For now - and maybe for a time. Considering comments he has expressed lately, he has been eager to secure a new position. He will view this role as the ultimate opportunity, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a return to the place where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Will he relinquish it readily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic might well reach out to contact their ex-manager, but O'Neill will act as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Effort at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the brutal way the shareholder described Rodgers.

It was a forceful attempt at defamation, a branding of Rodgers as untrustful, a source of untruths, a spreader of falsehoods; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," stated he.

For a person who prizes decorum and places great store in business being conducted with discretion, if not outright privacy, here was a further illustration of how unusual things have become at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's most powerful figure, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the individual with the authority to make all the important decisions he pleases without having the responsibility of justifying them in any open setting.

He never participate in club annual meetings, sending his son, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, does media talks about Celtic unless they're glowing in nature. And even then, he's reluctant to communicate.

He has been known on an rare moment to defend the club with private missives to news outlets, but nothing is made in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to remain. And that's just what he contradicted when going all-out attack on the manager on Monday.

The directive from the club is that he resigned, but reviewing Desmond's invective, line by line, you have to wonder why he permit it to get such a critical point?

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

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

He claims Rodgers' words "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the club and encouraged hostility towards members of the management and the directors. A portion of the abuse directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unwarranted and improper."

What an remarkable allegation, that is. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

His Ambition Conflicted with Celtic's Strategy Once More'

To return to better days, they were close, the two men. The manager lauded Desmond at every turn, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Brendan respected Dermot and, truly, to no one other.

This was Desmond who drew the heat when his comeback happened, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most divisive hiring, the reappearance of the returning hero for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have put it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had his support. Gradually, the manager employed the charm, achieved the victories and the honors, and an fragile peace with the fans became a love-in again.

There was always - consistently - going to be a moment when his goals came in contact with the club's business model, though.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with bells on, over the last year. He spoke openly about the sluggish process the team went about their transfer business, the endless delay for targets to be secured, then missed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was believed.

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

Despite the organization splurged record amounts of funds in a calendar year on the £11m one signing, the costly another player and the significant Auston Trusty - none of whom have cut it to date, with one already having departed - Rodgers pushed for more and more and, often, he did it in openly.

He planted a bomb about a lack of cohesion inside the club and then walked away. Upon questioning about his comments at his next media briefing he would usually minimize it and almost reverse what he said.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, all are united, he'd claim. It looked like Rodgers was playing a dangerous game.

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that allegedly came from a insider associated with the club. It claimed that Rodgers was damaging Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was managing his exit strategy.

He desired not to be there and he was engineering his exit, this was the implication of the story.

Supporters were enraged. They then saw him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his board members did not support his vision to bring success.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was meant to harm Rodgers, which it accomplished. He demanded for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be removed. Whether there was a examination then we learned nothing further about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was losing the backing of the people in charge.

The regular {gripes