🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following the club issued the announcement of their manager's shock resignation via a perfunctory short statement, the bombshell arrived, from the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious anger.

Through an extensive statement, key investor Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

This individual he convinced to come to the club when Rangers were getting uppity in that period and required being in their place. And the figure he once more relied on after the previous manager left for another club in the summer of 2023.

Such was the ferocity of Desmond's critique, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was practically an secondary note.

Two decades after his exit from the club, and after much of his recent life was given over to an unending series of appearances and the playing of all his old hits at the team, Martin O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Based on things he has expressed recently, he has been keen to secure a new position. He will view this role as the ultimate chance, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such success and adulation.

Will he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well make a call to sound out Postecoglou, but the new appointment will act as a soothing presence for the moment.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - as surreal as it is - can be parked because the biggest shocking development was the brutal manner the shareholder wrote of the former manager.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at character assassination, a branding of him as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of misinformation; disruptive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the expense of others," stated he.

For a person who values propriety and places great store in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, here was a further illustration of how abnormal situations have grown at the club.

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

He never attend team annual meetings, dispatching his offspring, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, gives interviews about the team unless they're hagiographic in nature. And even then, he's slow to communicate.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the club with private messages to news outlets, but no statement is heard in public.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to be. And it's just what he contradicted when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on Monday.

The official line from the team is that he stepped down, but reviewing Desmond's criticism, line by line, one must question why did he permit it to get this far down the line?

Assuming the manager is guilty of all of the things that the shareholder is alleging he's responsible for, then it's fair to ask why had been the manager not dismissed?

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

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

What an remarkable charge, indeed. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we speak.

His Aspirations Clashed with the Club's Model Again

Looking back to better days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. The manager praised Desmond at every turn, thanked him every chance. Rodgers respected Dermot and, really, to no one other.

This was the figure who drew the criticism when his returned happened, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive appointment, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as some 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 charm, delivered the victories and the honors, and an fragile truce with the fans became a affectionate relationship again.

There was always - always - going to be a point when his goals came in contact with the club's business model, though.

It happened in his initial tenure and it happened again, with bells on, over the last year. Rodgers spoke openly about the sluggish process the team went about their transfer business, the endless waiting for prospects to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was believed.

Time and again he spoke about the need for what he called "flexibility" in the transfer window. Supporters concurred with him.

Even when the club splurged unprecedented sums of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the £9m another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well to date, with one already having departed - Rodgers pushed for more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He planted a bomb about a internal disunity within the team and then walked away. When asked about his remarks at his next media briefing he would typically minimize it and almost reverse what he stated.

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

A few months back there was a report in a publication that allegedly originated from a source associated with the club. It claimed that the manager was harming the team with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his departure plan.

He desired not to be present and he was arranging his exit, that was the tone of the story.

The fans were enraged. They now viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his directors did not support his vision to bring success.

The leak was damaging, of course, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He demanded for an investigation and for the guilty person to be dismissed. If there was a examination then we heard no more about it.

At that point it was clear the manager was shedding the backing of the individuals in charge.

The frequent {gripes