🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour following Celtic issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a perfunctory short statement, the bombshell landed, courtesy of the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in apparent fury.

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

The man he convinced to come to the club when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and required being in their place. Plus the figure he once more relied on after the previous manager departed to another club in the recent offseason.

So intense was the severity of his critique, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was practically an secondary note.

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after a large part of his latter years was dedicated to an unending circuit of appearances and the playing of all his old hits at the team, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and maybe for a while. Based on comments he has expressed lately, he has been keen to get a new position. He'll view this role as the perfect opportunity, a gift from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the place where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

Would he give it up readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic could possibly make a call to sound out Postecoglou, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the moment.

All-out Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's reappearance - as surreal as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the brutal way the shareholder described the former manager.

It was a forceful endeavor at defamation, a labeling of him as untrustful, a source of falsehoods, a disseminator of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the expense of others," stated Desmond.

For somebody who prizes propriety and sets high importance in dealings being done with discretion, if not complete privacy, here was another example of how unusual situations have become at the club.

Desmond, the organization's dominant figure, operates in the background. The remote leader, the one with the authority to take all the major decisions he pleases without having the obligation of justifying them in any public forum.

He never attend club annual meetings, sending his offspring, Ross, in his place. He rarely, if ever, gives interviews about the team unless they're glowing in tone. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

There have been instances on an rare moment to defend the club with confidential missives to media organisations, but nothing is made in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to be. And it's exactly what he went against when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on that day.

The directive from the club is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing Desmond's criticism, line by line, one must question why he permit it to get such a critical point?

If the manager is culpable of every one of the accusations that the shareholder is claiming he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to ask why had been the coach not dismissed?

He has charged him of spinning information in public that were inconsistent with reality.

He claims his statements "played a part to a toxic atmosphere around the team and fuelled hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the board. Some of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and unacceptable."

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

His Ambition Conflicted with the Club's Model Again

To return to happier days, they were tight, the two men. The manager lauded Desmond at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Rodgers respected Dermot and, truly, to no one other.

It was the figure who drew the heat when his comeback happened, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most divisive appointment, the reappearance of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have described it, the return of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

Desmond had Rodgers' support. Gradually, Rodgers employed the persuasion, achieved the victories and the honors, and an fragile peace with the supporters became a love-in again.

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

This occurred in his first incarnation and it transpired again, with added intensity, recently. He publicly commented about the slow process Celtic went about their transfer business, the endless waiting for prospects to be secured, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he spoke about the necessity for what he termed "flexibility" in the market. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the club splurged record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the costly another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have cut it so far, with Idah since having departed - the manager demanded increased resources and, often, he did it in public.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion within the team and then distanced himself. When asked about his remarks at his subsequent news conference he would usually downplay it and almost contradict what he stated.

Internal issues? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It appeared like he was playing a dangerous game.

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that purportedly originated from a insider close to the organization. It said that the manager was damaging Celtic with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was orchestrating his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be present and he was engineering his way out, this was the tone of the article.

Supporters were angered. They now saw him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his shield because his board members wouldn't back his vision to bring success.

The leak was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to hurt him, which it accomplished. He demanded for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. If there was a examination then we learned nothing further about it.

At that point it was clear Rodgers was shedding the support of the individuals above him.

The frequent {gripes