🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes after the club released the news of their manager's surprising departure via a brief short communication, the howitzer landed, from the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in apparent anger.

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

The man he convinced to come to the team when Rangers were getting uppity in 2016 and required being in their place. And the man he once more relied on after Ange Postecoglou departed to Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

Such was the ferocity of his critique, the astonishing comeback of the former boss was practically an secondary note.

Two decades after his exit from the club, and after a large part of his latter years was given over to an unending series of appearances and the playing of all his old hits at the team, Martin O'Neill is back in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a while. Based on comments he has said recently, he has been keen to get a new position. He'll view this role as the ultimate opportunity, a present from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the place where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

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

All-out Attempt at Character Assassination

O'Neill's return - as surreal as it may be - can be parked because the most significant 'wow!' moment was the brutal manner the shareholder wrote of the former manager.

This constituted a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a labeling of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of falsehoods; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "One individual's wish for self-preservation at the expense of others," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who values propriety and places great store in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, here was a further illustration of how abnormal situations have become at the club.

The major figure, the organization's most powerful figure, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the power to make all the major decisions he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He never attend club AGMs, sending his offspring, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, does media talks about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in tone. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to defend the organization with private missives to news outlets, but nothing is heard 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 Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the club is that he stepped down, but reviewing his criticism, carefully, you have to wonder why he permit it to reach this far down the line?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of every one of the things that Desmond is alleging he's guilty of, then it's fair to ask why had been the manager not removed?

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

He says Rodgers' words "played a part to a toxic environment around the team and fuelled animosity towards members of the management and the board. Some of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unjustified and unacceptable."

What an remarkable allegation, that is. Lawyers might be preparing as we speak.

'Rodgers' Ambition Conflicted with Celtic's Model Once More'

Looking back to happier times, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded the shareholder at every turn, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, truly, to nobody else.

This was the figure who drew the heat when Rodgers' comeback happened, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive appointment, the return of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Gradually, Rodgers employed the charm, achieved the wins and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship again.

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

This occurred in his first incarnation and it happened again, with bells on, recently. He spoke openly about the sluggish process Celtic went about their transfer business, the interminable delay for targets to be secured, then missed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Time and again he spoke about the necessity for what he termed "flexibility" in the transfer window. Supporters concurred with him.

Even when the club splurged unprecedented sums of money in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the costly Adam Idah and the significant Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well to date, with one already having departed - the manager demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in public.

He set a bomb about a internal disunity within the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent media briefing he would usually downplay it and almost reverse what he stated.

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

A few months back there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly came from a source associated with the organization. It said that the manager was damaging the team 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 tone of the article.

The fans were enraged. They then saw him as akin to a martyr who might be removed on his shield because his directors did not support his plans to achieve triumph.

The leak was poisonous, naturally, and it was intended to harm Rodgers, which it did. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. If there was a examination then we learned no more about it.

At that point it was clear Rodgers was shedding the backing of the people in charge.

The regular {gripes