🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes after the club issued the announcement of their manager's shock resignation via a brief five-paragraph statement, the bombshell arrived, from the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in obvious fury.

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

The man he persuaded to join the club when their rivals were getting uppity in that period and needed putting in their place. And the figure he again relied on after the previous manager departed to another club in the recent offseason.

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

Two decades after his departure from the club, 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 past successes at the team, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Considering things he has said lately, O'Neill has been eager to secure a new position. He'll see this role as the perfect chance, a gift from the club's legacy, a return to the place where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

Would he give it up easily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic might well make a call to sound out their ex-manager, but the new appointment will act as a soothing presence for the time being.

All-out Effort at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - however strange as it is - can be set aside because the most significant shocking moment was the harsh manner the shareholder described the former manager.

This constituted a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a labeling of him as untrustful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of misinformation; divisive, misleading and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the cost of everyone else," stated he.

For a person who prizes decorum and places great store in dealings being done with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, this was a further example of how abnormal things have grown at the club.

Desmond, the club's most powerful figure, operates in the margins. The remote leader, the individual with the power to take all the important decisions he wants without having the obligation of justifying them in any public forum.

He never participate in team AGMs, sending his offspring, Ross, instead. He seldom, if ever, does interviews about the team unless they're hagiographic in tone. And still, he's reluctant to speak out.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the club with private missives to media organisations, but nothing is heard in public.

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

The official line from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading Desmond's invective, carefully, you have to wonder why he permit it to reach this far down the line?

Assuming the manager is culpable of all of the accusations that the shareholder is alleging he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to inquire why was the manager not removed?

He has accused him of spinning information in public that did not tally with the facts.

He says Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a toxic atmosphere around the team and fuelled animosity towards members of the executive team and the board. A portion of the abuse directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

What an remarkable allegation, that is. Lawyers might be mobilising as we discuss.

His Ambition Clashed with Celtic's Model Again

Looking back to happier times, they were close, the two men. Rodgers lauded Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan respected him and, really, to no one other.

It was Desmond who drew the heat when Rodgers' comeback occurred, post-Postecoglou.

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

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, Rodgers turned on the charm, delivered the victories and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the fans turned into a love-in again.

There was always - always - going to be a moment when Rodgers' goals clashed with Celtic's operational approach, though.

It happened in his initial tenure and it happened once more, with added intensity, over the last year. He publicly commented about the sluggish process Celtic went about their player acquisitions, the endless delay for prospects to be secured, then not landed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he spoke about the need for what he called "agility" in the market. Supporters agreed with him.

Despite the club splurged unprecedented sums of funds in a twelve-month period on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the significant Auston Trusty - none of whom have cut it so far, with Idah already having departed - the manager demanded more and more and, often, he expressed this in public.

He set a controversy about a internal disunity inside the team and then distanced himself. When asked about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would usually minimize it and nearly contradict what he stated.

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

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that allegedly came from a source associated with the organization. It claimed that the manager was damaging Celtic 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 article.

Supporters were angered. They now viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his honor because his board members did not support his vision to bring triumph.

This disclosure was damaging, of course, and it was meant to hurt him, which it did. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. Whether there was a examination then we learned nothing further about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was losing the backing of the individuals in charge.

The frequent {gripes