🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes following the club issued the announcement of their manager's surprising resignation via a brief five-paragraph statement, the howitzer landed, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious fury.

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

The man he convinced to come to the team when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and required being in their place. And the man he once more turned to after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

So intense was the ferocity of his critique, the astonishing return of Martin O'Neill was almost an secondary note.

Two decades after his departure from the organization, and after much of his recent life was given over to an continuous circuit of appearances and the performance of all his old hits at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a time. Considering comments he has expressed lately, O'Neill has been keen to get another job. He will view this role as the perfect chance, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a return to the environment where he experienced such success and adulation.

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

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the biggest shocking moment was the brutal manner Desmond wrote of the former manager.

This constituted a forceful attempt at defamation, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of falsehoods; disruptive, misleading and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the cost of others," stated Desmond.

For somebody who values decorum and places great store in business being conducted with discretion, if not complete privacy, this was a further illustration of how abnormal things have grown at Celtic.

Desmond, the organization's most powerful figure, operates in the background. The remote leader, the individual with the authority to make all the major decisions he pleases without having the obligation of explaining them in any open setting.

He never attend club annual meetings, sending his son, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives interviews about the team unless they're glowing in nature. And still, he's slow to speak out.

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

It's exactly how he's preferred it to remain. And that's exactly what he contradicted when going full thermonuclear on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the team is that he stepped down, but reading Desmond's criticism, carefully, one must question why did he permit it to get such a critical point?

Assuming the manager is culpable of every one of the things that the shareholder is alleging he's guilty of, then it's fair to ask why was the coach not removed?

He has accused him of spinning information in public that were inconsistent with reality.

He claims his words "have contributed to a toxic atmosphere around the club and encouraged animosity towards members of the executive team and the directors. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

What an extraordinary charge, that is. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Conflicted with the Club's Model Again

Looking back to better times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers praised Desmond at every turn, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Rodgers deferred to him and, really, to nobody else.

This was the figure who drew the criticism when Rodgers' comeback happened, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most divisive hiring, the return of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as some other supporters would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Gradually, the manager turned on the persuasion, achieved the wins and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the fans became a love-in once more.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a point when his goals clashed with Celtic's operational approach, however.

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with added intensity, over the last year. Rodgers publicly commented about the slow process Celtic went about 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 believed.

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

Despite the club splurged unprecedented sums of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m Arne Engels, the costly another player and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have cut it to date, with Idah since having left - the manager pushed for increased resources and, often, he did it in openly.

He set a controversy about a lack of cohesion within the team and then walked away. Upon questioning about his remarks at his next news conference he would usually downplay it and almost contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It looked like he was engaging in a dangerous game.

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that purportedly came from a insider close to the organization. It said that Rodgers was damaging Celtic with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was orchestrating his departure plan.

He didn't want to be there and he was arranging his exit, that was the implication of the article.

Supporters were enraged. They then saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his board members wouldn't support his plans to bring success.

This disclosure was damaging, naturally, and it was meant to harm Rodgers, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

By then it was clear Rodgers was shedding the support of the people above him.

The frequent {gripes