🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour after the club released the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' surprising resignation via a brief short statement, the bombshell arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in obvious fury.

In an extensive statement, major shareholder Desmond savaged his former ally.

This individual he convinced to join the club when Rangers were gaining ground in that period and required being back in a box. And the figure he again turned to after the previous manager departed to another club in the summer of 2023.

So intense was the severity of Desmond's takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was practically an secondary note.

Two decades after his departure 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, Martin O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

Currently - and perhaps for a while. Considering comments he has expressed lately, O'Neill has been keen to secure another job. He'll see this one as the perfect chance, a gift from the club's legacy, a return to the environment where he experienced such success and praise.

Would he relinquish it easily? It seems unlikely. The club could possibly reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but O'Neill will act as a soothing presence for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

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

This constituted a full-blooded endeavor at character assassination, a branding of Rodgers as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's desire for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who prizes decorum and sets high importance in business being done with discretion, if not complete secrecy, this was a further example of how abnormal situations have become at the club.

The major figure, the club's dominant presence, moves in the background. The absentee totem, the one with the power to make all the important decisions he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any open setting.

He never participate in team AGMs, dispatching his offspring, his son, in his place. He seldom, if ever, does interviews about the team unless they're hagiographic in tone. And still, he's slow to communicate.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to support the organization with private missives to news outlets, but nothing is heard in public.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to remain. And it's exactly what he went against when going full thermonuclear on the manager on Monday.

The official line from the club is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing his invective, carefully, you have to wonder why he allow it to reach such a critical point?

If the manager is guilty of every one of the accusations that Desmond is claiming he's responsible for, then it's fair to inquire why had been the manager not dismissed?

Desmond has accused him of spinning information in open forums that were inconsistent with reality.

He says his words "played a part to a hostile environment around the team and encouraged hostility towards members of the management and the board. Some of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unwarranted and unacceptable."

What an remarkable charge, that is. Legal representatives might be preparing as we speak.

His Ambition Clashed with Celtic's Model Once More'

Looking back to happier times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager praised the shareholder at every turn, thanked him every chance. Brendan respected Dermot and, really, to no one other.

It was Desmond who took the criticism when his returned happened, after the previous manager.

It was the most controversial appointment, the reappearance of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other supporters would have put it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the lurch for Leicester.

The shareholder had his support. Gradually, the manager turned on the charm, achieved the victories and the honors, and an fragile truce with the supporters became a love-in once more.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a point when Rodgers' goals came in contact with Celtic's business model, however.

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with added intensity, over the last year. He publicly commented about the sluggish process the team conducted their transfer business, the interminable delay for prospects to be landed, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he stated about the necessity for what he called "agility" in the market. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the club spent record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the significant further acquisition - none of whom have cut it to date, with Idah already having left - the manager pushed for more and more and, often, he did it in public.

He planted a bomb about a internal disunity inside the team and then walked away. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent media briefing he would typically downplay it and almost contradict what he said.

Internal issues? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It appeared like Rodgers was playing a risky game.

A few months back there was a report in a publication that purportedly came from a source associated with the organization. It claimed that Rodgers was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was managing his departure plan.

He desired not to be there and he was arranging his way out, this was the tone of the story.

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

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was meant to harm him, which it did. He demanded for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. If there was a examination then we heard no more about it.

By then it was clear the manager was shedding the support of the individuals in charge.

The frequent {gripes