🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour after the club issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the bombshell landed, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious anger.

Through an extensive statement, major shareholder Dermot Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

The man he persuaded to come to the club when Rangers were gaining ground in that period and required being back in a box. And the man he again turned to after Ange Postecoglou left for another club in the recent offseason.

So intense was the ferocity of his takedown, the astonishing comeback of the former boss was almost an after-thought.

Two decades after his exit from the club, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an continuous circuit of appearances and the performance of all his past successes at the team, Martin O'Neill is back in the dugout.

For now - and maybe for a while. Considering things he has said lately, O'Neill has been keen to get another job. He will see this one as the perfect opportunity, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the place where he experienced such glory and adulation.

Will he give it up easily? It seems unlikely. Celtic could possibly make a call to sound out Postecoglou, but O'Neill will act as a balm for the time being.

All-out Effort at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - as surreal as it is - can be set aside because the most significant shocking moment was the brutal manner Desmond wrote of Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful attempt at character assassination, a labeling of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of misinformation; disruptive, misleading and unacceptable. "A single person's desire for self-preservation at the cost of others," wrote he.

For a person who values decorum and sets high importance in dealings being conducted with discretion, if not outright secrecy, here was another example of how unusual things have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's most powerful presence, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the authority to make all the important calls he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any open setting.

He does not attend team AGMs, dispatching his son, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, does interviews about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in tone. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to defend the organization with confidential messages to media organisations, but nothing is made in the open.

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

The official line from the team is that Rodgers resigned, but reading Desmond's criticism, carefully, you have to wonder why he allow it to reach this far down the line?

If the manager is guilty of every one of the things that Desmond is claiming he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to ask why had been the coach not dismissed?

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

He claims Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a toxic atmosphere around the club and fuelled hostility towards individuals of the management and the directors. Some of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unjustified and improper."

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

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

Looking back to better days, they were tight, the two men. Rodgers lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Rodgers respected Dermot and, really, to nobody else.

It was Desmond who took the criticism when his returned happened, after the previous manager.

This marked the most controversial appointment, the reappearance of the prodigal son for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had his back. Gradually, Rodgers employed the persuasion, delivered the victories and the honors, and an uneasy truce with the supporters turned into a affectionate relationship again.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a moment when his ambition clashed with the club's operational approach, though.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it transpired again, with bells on, over the last year. He spoke openly about the sluggish way Celtic went about their player acquisitions, the interminable delay for targets to be secured, then not landed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he spoke about the necessity for what he termed "agility" in the market. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the organization spent unprecedented sums of funds in a twelve-month period on the expensive Arne Engels, the costly Adam Idah and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well to date, with one already having left - Rodgers demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He planted a controversy about a lack of cohesion inside the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his next news conference he would usually minimize it and nearly contradict what he said.

Internal issues? No, no, all are united, he'd say. It looked like Rodgers was playing a risky game.

A few months back there was a report in a newspaper that allegedly came from a source associated with the club. It said that the manager was damaging the team with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his departure plan.

He didn't want to be present and he was engineering his exit, this was the tone of the story.

The fans were angered. They then viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his honor because his board members did not support his vision to bring success.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was meant to harm him, which it did. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. If there was a examination then we heard nothing further about it.

By then it was plain the manager was losing the support of the individuals above him.

The regular {gripes