🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes after the club released the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a brief five-paragraph communication, the howitzer arrived, from Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in obvious fury.

Through 551-words, key investor Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

This individual he convinced to join the club when their rivals were getting uppity in 2016 and needed putting in their place. Plus the figure he again relied on after the previous manager departed to another club in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of Desmond's critique, the jaw-dropping return of Martin O'Neill was practically an secondary note.

Twenty years after his exit from the club, and after much of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous series of appearances and the performance of all his old hits at the team, O'Neill is back in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Considering comments he has expressed recently, he has been keen to secure a new position. He'll see this one as the ultimate opportunity, a present from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the place where he experienced such glory and praise.

Will he give it up easily? It seems unlikely. Celtic might well reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the time being.

'Full-blooded Effort at Character Assassination

O'Neill's reappearance - as surreal as it is - can be parked because the most significant 'wow!' development was the brutal manner the shareholder described Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful attempt at character assassination, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a spreader of falsehoods; disruptive, misleading and unjustifiable. "One individual's desire for self-interest at the cost of everyone else," stated he.

For a person who prizes decorum and places great store in dealings being done with discretion, if not complete privacy, here was a further example of how abnormal things have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the organization's most powerful presence, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the power to make all the major decisions he pleases without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He never participate in team annual meetings, dispatching his son, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, does media talks about Celtic unless they're glowing in tone. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

He has been known on an occasion or two to support the club with confidential missives to media organisations, but no statement is heard in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to remain. And it's exactly what he went against when going full thermonuclear on the manager on that day.

The directive from the team is that Rodgers stepped down, but reviewing his criticism, line by line, one must question why did he permit it to reach this far down the line?

If Rodgers is culpable of every one of the accusations that Desmond is alleging he's guilty of, then it's fair to inquire why was the manager not removed?

Desmond has charged him of distorting information in open forums that did not tally with the facts.

He claims his statements "have contributed to a toxic atmosphere around the club and fuelled animosity towards individuals of the management and the board. Some of the criticism directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

Such an remarkable allegation, that is. Legal representatives might be preparing as we speak.

His Ambition Clashed with the Club's Strategy Once More'

Looking back to happier days, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers lauded Desmond at every turn, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Brendan respected him and, really, to no one other.

This was the figure who drew the criticism when his returned happened, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most divisive appointment, the reappearance of the returning hero for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have described it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had his support. Over time, Rodgers turned on the persuasion, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an uneasy peace with the fans became a love-in once more.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a moment when Rodgers' goals came in contact with the club's operational approach, however.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with bells on, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the sluggish way the team conducted their transfer business, the interminable delay for targets to be secured, then not landed, as was frequently the case as far as he was concerned.

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

Despite the club spent record amounts of money in a twelve-month period on the £11m Arne Engels, the costly another player and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have performed well to date, with Idah since having departed - the manager demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He planted a bomb 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 minimize it and nearly contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, all are united, he'd say. It looked like he was playing a dangerous strategy.

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that allegedly originated from a source associated with the club. It said that the manager was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was managing his departure plan.

He didn't want to be present and he was arranging his way out, that was the tone of the story.

The fans were enraged. They now viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his directors wouldn't support his vision to achieve triumph.

This disclosure was damaging, naturally, and it was meant to hurt Rodgers, which it accomplished. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a probe then we learned nothing further about it.

By then it was plain the manager was losing the support of the individuals in charge.

The regular {gripes