Celtic is one of the powerhouses of Scottish football. Along with their Old Firm rivals, Rangers, Celtic are essentially the measuring stick when it comes to success in Scotland. This season has been a stark contrast to how the previous seasons have gone.
They are second in the Premiership and are reeling behind current leaders Hearts. The resulting aftermath of this status is the resignation of the Celtic manager, Brendan Rodgers. He'd had great success in the past. While there, he won: 3 Premiership titles; 4 League Cups and 3 Scottish Cups.
All this has seemingly been forgotten as statements made by Rodgers upon his resignation has sparked a division between him and the major shareholder, Dermot Desmond.
Monday night brought two statements from Celtic Park, one from the club announcing that Brendan Rodgers had resigned, the other from major shareholder, Dermot Desmond, excoriating the now ex-manager in the most incendiary fashion.
Nobody really expected Brendan Rodgers to be at Celtic next season but equally, nobody thought that he was about to resign. During the week, he said he, "was never more motivated in my time at Celtic."
In the wake of the 3-1 loss to Hearts on Sunday, he said: "I've never worked harder in all my time here. So the motivation is there to try and flip the levels that we're at. It's absolutely fine, it's still so early. I think that's the key point in it all. We've just got to hang in there at this moment, find those performances, find the results and hopefully our levels will improve as the season goes on."
Just over 24 hours later, he was gone. It begs the question - the first of many - what changed? The rest of these quotes are drawn from Desmond's own statement.
"In June, both Michael Nicholson and I (Dermot Desmond) expressed to Brendan that we were keen to offer him a contract extension, to reaffirm the club's full backing and long-term commitment to him. He said he would need to think about it and revert. Yet in subsequent press conferences, Brendan implied that the club had made no commitment to offer him a contract. That was simply untrue."
All of this is open to interpretation. Only those in the room know exactly what was said but we can analyse Rodgers' version from closer to the time. In August, he said all three parties had a conversation "on where we were at and where it sits with myself and everything else and I said I'm very happy here."
Rodgers pointed out to the media that "when the club feels there's that time to make an offer then they will do." In September, Rodgers said that he hadn't "had an offer yet to think over and until that comes I am not going to be so arrogant to say I want to be here for another three years. The club might not want me here. I have to respect that. Until there's something serious on a piece of paper, I continue to do my job."
Desmond is entitled to ask why Rodgers was publicly saying "the club might not want me here" when, as Desmond claims, Rodgers had already been told in June that he was wanted. Was he actually made an offer to stay? Desmond stated a keenness to offer a contract extension but stopped short of saying that he actually put anything on the table. There's a bit of dancing on the head of a pin about this.
"Every player signed and every player sold during his tenure was done so with Brendan's full knowledge, approval, and endorsement. Any insinuation otherwise is absolutely false." The "insinuation" came during the summer when two players in particular, the striker, Shin Yamada and the defender, Hayato Inamura, were brought in. Rodgers referred to them as "club signings."
Rodgers didn't say this explicitly but people took from his comments that those arrivals weren't sanctioned by him. The former manager might dispute the interpretation, of course but clearly this is how Desmond also interpreted it.
The inference that players were being signed without his support caused disquiet behind the scenes and suspicion and rancour among the fans. It was the beginning - or the continuation - of the breakdown in trust between the board and Rodgers.
Last month, an amalgam of Celtic fans' groups called the Celtic Fan Collective had a meeting with some key people at the club and they asked if Rodgers had the final say on all players. Chief executive Michael Nicholson said he had.
Why then did Rodgers refer to "club signings," Nicholson was asked. In reply, Nicholson shrugged his shoulders. No words, but a further indication that all was far from well. Later, a statement came out of Celtic and reading it now it takes on a different hue. "...much of what is written in the media or online about our transfer dealings is inaccurate," it read.
It went on: "We also understand that this leads to frustration among supporters. While we cannot comment during ongoing negotiations, we are exploring ways to seek to address the gap between speculation and reality once each transfer window closes, in order to improve clarity for our supporters."
Did Desmond hold Rodgers partially responsible for inaccurate information in the media and subsequent fan frustration? It would appear so. Rodgers has yet to address this.
"His (Rodgers') later public statements about transfers and club operations came entirely out of the blue."
This is a curious one because Rodgers had been going on about transfers and club operations for the longest time. It didn't just start this summer, it was a regular theme before that - and a theme of Ange Postecoglou's and Neil Lennon's before him. Out of the blue? Not really.
"Regrettably, his words and actions since then have been divisive, misleading, and self-serving. They have contributed to a toxic atmosphere around the club and fuelled hostility towards members of the executive team and the Board. Some of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unwarranted and unacceptable."
A hugely serious charge. There's no doubt that a toxic atmosphere has set in at Celtic but for Desmond not to accept the board's own role in that is quite something.
Many fans' groups feel that they are not being listened to and that the club is going backwards, a feeling that has driven the fans to the point of mutiny. The creation of hostility can't be placed solely at the door of the former manager. "What has failed recently was not due to our structure or model, but one individual's desire for self-preservation at the expense of others."
From Desmond there doesn't appear to be any acceptance of responsibility for what has gone wrong at the club lately.
Celtic's model has served them extremely well over the years but most recently, it's faltered badly. Sub-standard players have been recruited and aren't mapped at Celtic Park these days. There's plenty of blame to go around on that score.
Kyogo Furuhashi, Matt O'Riley, Liel Abada and Nicolas Kuhn were X-factor operators for the club but they don't have that kind of quality anymore. They've spent plenty of money but have they spent it wisely? If not, is that not an indictment of the Celtic model and execution?
Accusing Rodgers of self-preservation doesn't address the fact that Celtic's team lacks so many things that it once had. The blame is not a one-way street. "We all share the same ambition: to ensure Celtic's continued success domestically and to achieve further progress in Europe."
There's no doubt that Celtic is full of people who want the best for the club but Desmond's line about "further progress in Europe" is highly debatable.
They've been knocked out of the Champions League by Kazakhstan side, Kairat Almaty and they have regularly failed, under several different managers, to make the old group stages, losing to teams with smaller budgets.
In the last 10 years they have won 41% of all European games and have lost 45%. The four biggest defeats in their European history have all come in the last decade. "Further progress" is a stretch when your city rivals have made two European finals since Celtic last appeared in one.
Celtic fans, in great numbers, will tell you that Desmond has too great a say in the running of the club, that he has become too powerful.
The fact that it wasn't the club chairman or chief executive or the board as a united force that delivered that thunderclap to Rogers on Monday evening but Desmond, the major shareholder but a non-executive at Celtic, is, perhaps, indicative of the club not being greater than any one person.
The scale of reverberation around Brendan Rodgers' resignation is such that even the return of Martin O’Neill to the Celtic dugout is not the most dramatic element. Instead, the lesser‑spotted Dermot Desmond broke cover to lacerate Rodgers. The attack felt personal and spiteful. This proved a sad and unseemly conclusion to Rodgers' second spell in Glasgow. So much so, in fact, that the third most successful manager in Celtic’s history can't now show his face at the stadium. Desmond appears to be a bad enemy to choose.
Desmond’s ferocious sentiment shone a light on recent months inside Celtic Park. The environment was toxic. It doesn't explain why a manager accused of being "self‑serving" and guilty of a breach of trust was simply not removed from office months ago. Desmond’s astonishing words turned heads but they also raise questions. Were Rodgers as egotistical as Desmond portrays, he would've left Celtic immediately after the summer’s botched transfer window. Rodgers could've secured martyrdom with supporters. He, instead, limped on with Celtic eight points behind a Hearts team who were well short of their best when seeing off Rodgers and co. in Edinburgh on Sunday.
Desmond blames Rodgers for "fuelling" supporter protest towards the board which has formed a regular backdrop to this ragged campaign. "Some of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unwarranted and unacceptable," Desmond said. The 75-year-old is correct to condemn such behaviour, but plenty of the Celtic disquiet has been articulated in sensible and appropriate style.
Desmond’s assassination of Rodgers is unlikely to placate dissenters. "It’s normally the manager that goes when that starts to be sung," Rodgers said amid cries of "sack the board" in late August. He was mocked at the time; he was right.
It's worth remembering that Celtic’s previous chief executive lasted two months. Non‑executive directors serve for years, if not decades. Desmond owns just over 30% of Celtic; the Monday night bulletin was from a man with total control.
The success to which Desmond refers is perfectly fair in domestic context. There have been glimmers of light in Europe – including last season – but Celtic’s regular shortcomings there undermine his point. Those struggles span various managers; Kairat Almaty saw off Celtic in Champions League qualifying two months ago, just as Norwegian side, Bodø/Glimt; Hungarian side, Ferencvaros; Romanian side, Cluj; Greek side, AEK Athens; Slovenian side, Maribor and Swedish side, Malmö have done stretching back to 2014. Bodø/Glimt, Cypriot side, Pafos; Czechia side, Slavia Prague and Belgian side, Union St-Gilloise are in the Champions League this season.
Celtic portray themselves as a major club and in many respects they are. At Rodgers’ final European game, the win against Austrian side, Sturm Graz, last week, he completed media duties in the typical domain of a marquee in the car park. Celtic fans won't care how the press are treated – in fact many will delight in the provision of spartan facilities – but this emphasises a broader sense of the small-time.
The problem with criticising Rodgers – as plenty were doing even before his resignation – is that none of this could've formed part of his plan. He hardly wanted this second spell to end so sourly or there was no reason to return while ignoring more lucrative opportunities. Third-season syndrome does not adequately explain why a team that scared Bayern Munich in February but had visibly run out of gas by the time of the Scottish Cup final defeat by Aberdeen in May was not properly rejuvenated.
Celtic’s title was confirmed with weeks, if not months to spare. Their Champions League qualifying position was known. Rodgers' frustration over a lack of attacking reinforcement, not only in the summer but January, was understandable.
His final game, the defeat on Sunday at Hearts, had Johnny Kenny as the starting centre-forward. Were Kenny playing for Falkirk, there would be no clamour for Celtic to sign him.
Celtic’s squad has regressed; it would be non-sensical to believe this appealed in any way to Rodgers. Jahmai Simpson-Pusey, Shin Yamada and Hayato Inamura – all brought in during the summer window – have barely been seen. Daizen Maeda was clearly affected after a move to the Bundesliga (German league) collapsed in essence because Celtic had no replacement. Kelechi Iheanacho, who quickly became the go-to No 9, arrived on a free on 2 September.
It would be inaccurate to portray Rodgers as blameless. Celtic had the resources to beat Kairat, albeit Champions League involvement was likely to bring embarrassment. The manager’s pointed assessment of recruitment would inevitably feed through to his dressing room. Players bought for decent fees – Auston Trusty, Arne Engels, Paulo Bernardo – have failed to deliver. Rodgers was, though, unquestionably Celtic’s most talented football operator, a matter proven by a substantial body of work. His desire to drive the club forward was beyond question.
It became increasingly apparent Rodgers would not see out this season. There was mutual disillusionment between him and his paymasters. There were, however, other ways to handle this: by stating manager and club were no longer aligned in their thoughts or that because Rodgers would leave in the summer anyway, an immediate parting of ways made more sense. Instead, there is acrimony. Rodgers’s side of the story, when presented, will be fascinating.
It's always hard to distinguish what's true and what's false when there's two sides; each on the opposite side of an argument. It looks like this was an inevitable move. Despite all this, it seems like each one shares the blame. Miscommunication in a business is never a good thing. Mixed messages can be dangerous. Everyone else will be confused and head scratching will occur.