🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes following Celtic issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising resignation via a perfunctory short statement, the bombshell arrived, from the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious fury.

Through 551-words, key investor Desmond savaged his old chum.

This individual he convinced to join the team when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and needed putting in their place. Plus the figure he once more relied on after Ange Postecoglou departed to another club in the summer of 2023.

So intense was the ferocity of Desmond's takedown, the astonishing comeback of Martin O'Neill was almost an after-thought.

Two decades after his departure from the organization, and after a large part of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous circuit of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his old hits at the team, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and maybe for a time. Considering things he has expressed recently, he has been keen to secure another job. He'll see this role as the perfect opportunity, a present from the club's legacy, a return to the place where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Will he relinquish it easily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club could possibly reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but the new appointment will serve as a soothing presence for the moment.

All-out Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's return - however strange as it is - can be parked because the biggest shocking moment was the harsh manner Desmond described the former manager.

This constituted a full-blooded attempt at character assassination, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of falsehoods; disruptive, misleading and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-interest 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, this was a further example of how unusual situations have become at the club.

The major figure, the organization's most powerful figure, moves in the background. The remote leader, the individual with the power to make all the important calls he wants without having the obligation of explaining them in any open setting.

He never attend club annual meetings, dispatching his son, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're glowing in tone. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

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

It's exactly 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 directive from the club is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing Desmond's criticism, line by line, you have to wonder why did he permit it to get this far down the line?

If the manager is guilty of all of the accusations that the shareholder is alleging he's responsible for, then it's fair to inquire why had been the coach not removed?

Desmond has accused him of distorting information in public that did not tally with the facts.

He says his statements "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the team and fuelled hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. Some of the criticism directed at them, and at their families, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

What an remarkable allegation, indeed. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Strategy Again

Looking back to better times, they were tight, the two men. The manager praised Desmond at every turn, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Brendan deferred to him and, truly, to no one other.

This was the figure who took the heat when Rodgers' returned occurred, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most controversial appointment, the reappearance of the returning hero for a few or, as other Celtic fans would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for Leicester.

Desmond had Rodgers' support. Gradually, Rodgers employed the charm, delivered the victories and the honors, and an uneasy truce with the supporters turned into a love-in once more.

There was always - always - going to be a point when Rodgers' goals clashed with the club's business model, though.

It happened in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with added intensity, over the last year. He spoke openly about the sluggish process Celtic conducted their player acquisitions, the interminable delay for prospects to be secured, then missed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he stated about the need for what he termed "agility" in the market. The fans concurred with him.

Despite the club spent unprecedented sums of money in a twelve-month period on the expensive one signing, the costly Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have performed well to date, with one since having departed - Rodgers demanded increased resources and, oftentimes, he expressed this in public.

He planted a bomb about a internal disunity inside the club and then walked away. When asked about his comments at his subsequent news conference he would usually minimize it and almost reverse what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It looked like Rodgers was engaging in a risky strategy.

A few months back there was a report in a publication that allegedly came from a insider close to the club. It said that the manager was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was managing his exit strategy.

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

Supporters were angered. They then saw him as akin to a martyr who might be carried out on his honor because his directors did not back his plans to achieve success.

The leak was poisonous, naturally, and it was meant to harm Rodgers, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. Whether there was a examination then we learned nothing further about it.

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

The regular {gripes