🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following the club released the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a perfunctory short communication, the bombshell arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in apparent fury.

Through 551-words, key investor Dermot Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

The man he persuaded to join the club when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and required being in their place. Plus the figure he once more turned to after Ange Postecoglou departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

So intense was the severity of Desmond's takedown, the astonishing comeback of Martin O'Neill was practically an secondary note.

Twenty years after his departure from the organization, and after a large part of his recent life was given over to an unending circuit of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

Currently - and maybe for a while. Based on things he has said recently, he has been eager to get another job. He will view this one as the perfect chance, a present from the club's legacy, a return to the place where he enjoyed such success and adulation.

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

All-out Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it is - can be set aside because the most significant shocking development was the brutal manner Desmond described Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of falsehoods, a disseminator of misinformation; disruptive, misleading and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-preservation at the expense of others," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who prizes decorum and places great store in dealings being done with confidentiality, if not complete secrecy, here was another example of how abnormal things have grown at Celtic.

Desmond, the organization's most powerful presence, operates in the background. The absentee totem, the one with the authority to make all the major decisions he pleases without having the responsibility of explaining them in any public forum.

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

There have been instances on an rare moment to defend the club with private missives to news outlets, but no statement is heard in the open.

This is precisely how he's wanted it to be. And it's just what he went against when going all-out attack on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the club is that he resigned, but reviewing Desmond's criticism, carefully, one must question why did he permit it to reach this far down the line?

Assuming the manager is guilty of every one of the accusations that Desmond is claiming he's guilty of, then it's fair to ask why had been the manager not removed?

Desmond has charged him of distorting things in public that were inconsistent with the facts.

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

Such an remarkable allegation, indeed. Lawyers might be mobilising as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Conflicted with the Club's Model Once More'

To return to happier times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager praised Desmond at every turn, thanked him every chance. Rodgers deferred to Dermot and, really, to nobody else.

This was Desmond who took the heat when Rodgers' comeback occurred, after the previous manager.

This marked the most divisive appointment, the return of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as some other Celtic fans would have put it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the lurch for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Over time, the manager turned on the persuasion, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the supporters turned into a love-in again.

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

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired again, with added intensity, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the sluggish process Celtic conducted their transfer business, the endless waiting for targets to be secured, then not landed, as was frequently the case as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he stated about the necessity for what he called "agility" in the transfer window. Supporters agreed with him.

Even when the club splurged unprecedented sums of money in a calendar year on the expensive one signing, the costly another player and the significant further acquisition - none of whom have performed well to date, with Idah already having left - the manager pushed for more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He set a controversy about a lack of cohesion within the team and then distanced himself. When asked about his comments at his subsequent news conference he would usually minimize it and almost contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, all are united, he'd claim. It appeared like he was playing a risky strategy.

A few months back there was a report in a newspaper that allegedly originated from a source associated with the club. It claimed that the manager was harming Celtic with his public outbursts and that his true aim was orchestrating his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be present and he was arranging his way out, this was the implication of the article.

The fans were enraged. They then viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his honor because his directors wouldn't back his vision to achieve success.

The leak was damaging, of course, and it was intended to hurt him, which it accomplished. He demanded for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

At that point it was clear Rodgers was losing the backing of the people above him.

The regular {gripes