🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following the club issued the announcement of their manager's surprising resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the howitzer landed, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in apparent anger.

In 551-words, key investor Desmond savaged his former ally.

The man he convinced to join the team when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and required being back in a box. And the figure he again relied on after Ange Postecoglou left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the ferocity of Desmond's critique, the astonishing return of Martin O'Neill was practically an after-thought.

Two decades after his exit from the organization, and after a large part of his recent life was given over to an unending circuit of appearances and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

Currently - and perhaps for a while. Based on things he has expressed recently, O'Neill has been keen to get a new position. He will see this role as the perfect opportunity, a gift from the club's legacy, a return to the place where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Would he relinquish it easily? It seems unlikely. Celtic might well reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but O'Neill will act as a soothing presence for the moment.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the brutal manner the shareholder described the former manager.

This constituted a full-blooded endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of him as deceitful, a perpetrator of untruths, a disseminator of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's desire for self-preservation at the expense of everyone else," wrote he.

For somebody who prizes decorum and places great store in dealings being conducted with discretion, if not complete privacy, here was another illustration of how abnormal situations have grown at the club.

Desmond, the organization's most powerful figure, moves in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the power to take all the major calls he pleases without having the obligation of justifying them in any open setting.

He never participate in team AGMs, dispatching his offspring, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in tone. And even then, he's slow to speak out.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to support the organization with private messages to media organisations, but nothing is heard in public.

This is precisely how he's wanted it to be. And it's just what he contradicted when going all-out attack on the manager on Monday.

The official line from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading his invective, line by line, you have to wonder why did he permit it to get this far down the line?

Assuming Rodgers is guilty of every one of the things that Desmond is alleging he's guilty of, then it's fair to inquire why was the manager not dismissed?

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

He says Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a hostile environment around the club and fuelled animosity towards members of the executive team and the board. A portion of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been completely unjustified and unacceptable."

What an extraordinary allegation, that is. Lawyers might be mobilising as we speak.

'Rodgers' Ambition Clashed with Celtic's Strategy Once More'

To return to better 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 nobody else.

This was the figure who drew the criticism when his comeback occurred, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive appointment, the reappearance of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the arrival of the shameless one, who departed in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had his back. Over time, the manager employed the charm, delivered the wins and the honors, and an uneasy truce with the fans became a affectionate relationship once more.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a point when Rodgers' goals came in contact with Celtic's operational approach, though.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it transpired once more, with added intensity, over the last year. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow way the team conducted their player acquisitions, the endless delay for prospects to be landed, then missed, as was frequently the case as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he stated about the necessity for what he termed "flexibility" in the market. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the club splurged unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the significant Auston Trusty - all of whom have cut it so far, with Idah since having left - Rodgers demanded more and more and, often, he did it in openly.

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

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, all are united, he'd say. It looked like he was playing a risky strategy.

A few months back there was a report in a publication that purportedly came from a insider close to 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 present and he was arranging his exit, this was the tone of the article.

The fans were enraged. They now saw him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his directors did not support his plans to achieve triumph.

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

By then it was plain Rodgers was shedding the support of the individuals in charge.

The frequent {gripes