🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes following Celtic released the news of their manager's shock departure via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the bombshell arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious anger.

Through 551-words, major shareholder Dermot Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

The man he persuaded to join the club when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and needed putting in their place. Plus the man he once more relied on after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

So intense was the ferocity of his takedown, the jaw-dropping return of the former boss was practically an secondary note.

Two decades after his exit from the organization, and after much of his latter years was given over to an unending circuit of appearances and the performance of all his old hits at the team, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a while. Considering things he has said lately, he has been keen to get another job. He'll see this role as the ultimate opportunity, a present from the club's legacy, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

Would he give it up easily? It seems unlikely. Celtic could possibly make a call to contact their ex-manager, but the new appointment will serve as a soothing presence for the moment.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be set aside because the most significant shocking development was the harsh manner the shareholder wrote of Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded attempt at defamation, a labeling of him as untrustful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of falsehoods; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "One individual's wish for self-preservation at the expense of everyone else," wrote Desmond.

For a person who prizes decorum and places great store in business being done with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, here was another example of how abnormal situations have grown at the club.

The major figure, the organization's dominant presence, operates in the background. The absentee totem, the individual with the authority to make all the important calls he pleases without having the responsibility of explaining them in any open setting.

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

There have been instances on an rare moment to defend the club with confidential messages to news outlets, but nothing is heard in the open.

This is precisely how he's wanted it to remain. And that's exactly what he went against when going all-out attack on Rodgers on that day.

The directive from the club is that he stepped down, but reviewing his invective, carefully, one must question why did he permit it to get such a critical point?

Assuming the manager is guilty of every one of the things that Desmond is claiming he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to ask why had been the coach not removed?

He has charged him of distorting information in public that did not tally with reality.

He says his statements "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the team and fuelled hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. Some of the abuse aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unjustified and improper."

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

His Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Model Once More'

Looking back to happier times, they were tight, the two men. Rodgers lauded Desmond at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Brendan respected him and, really, to nobody else.

This was the figure who took the criticism when his comeback occurred, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most controversial appointment, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as other supporters would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had his support. Over time, Rodgers employed the persuasion, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an uneasy truce with the fans became a love-in again.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a moment when his ambition came in contact with the club's operational approach, however.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it transpired again, with added intensity, over the last year. Rodgers publicly commented about the sluggish process Celtic conducted their transfer business, the interminable waiting for prospects to be secured, then missed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he stated about the need for what he termed "flexibility" in the transfer window. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the organization spent record amounts of money in a calendar year on the £11m one signing, the £9m Adam Idah and the significant further acquisition - all of whom have cut it to date, with Idah since having left - Rodgers pushed for increased resources and, oftentimes, he did it in public.

He set a controversy about a lack of cohesion within the club and then walked away. Upon questioning about his remarks at his next news conference he would typically minimize it and nearly contradict what he stated.

Internal issues? Not at all, all are united, he'd claim. It looked like he was playing a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that allegedly originated from a insider close to the organization. It said that Rodgers was damaging the team with his open criticisms and that his true aim was managing his exit strategy.

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

Supporters were angered. They then saw him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his directors wouldn't back his plans to bring triumph.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to harm Rodgers, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be removed. If there was a probe then we learned no more about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was losing the support of the people above him.

The frequent {gripes