🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour following the club issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a brief five-paragraph statement, the howitzer arrived, from the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in apparent anger.

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

This individual he convinced to join the club when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and required being in their place. Plus the man he again turned to after Ange Postecoglou departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

So intense was the severity of Desmond's takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was almost an after-thought.

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after much of his recent life was given over to an continuous series of appearances and the playing of all his old hits at Celtic, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Considering comments he has expressed recently, he has been eager to get another job. He'll view this role as the perfect chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the place where he enjoyed such success and adulation.

Will he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic could possibly make a call to sound out their ex-manager, but the new appointment will act as a balm for the time being.

All-out Effort at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be set aside because the most significant 'wow!' development was the brutal way Desmond described Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at defamation, a labeling of him as untrustful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, misleading and unjustifiable. "One individual's desire for self-interest at the expense of others," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who prizes decorum and sets high importance in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete secrecy, this was a further illustration of how unusual situations have become at Celtic.

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

He does not attend club annual meetings, dispatching his offspring, Ross, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're glowing in tone. And still, he's slow to communicate.

He has been known on an occasion or two to defend the organization with private missives to media organisations, but nothing is heard in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to be. And it's just what he contradicted when going full thermonuclear on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the team is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing his criticism, line by line, one must question why he permit it to reach such a critical point?

If Rodgers is culpable of every one of the things that the shareholder is alleging he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to ask why was the coach not dismissed?

He has accused him of distorting things in open forums that were inconsistent with the facts.

He claims his words "have contributed to a toxic environment around the club and fuelled animosity towards individuals of the management and the board. Some of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been completely unwarranted and unacceptable."

Such an remarkable charge, that is. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

His Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Model Again

To return to happier times, they were tight, the two men. The manager praised Desmond at every turn, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Brendan respected Dermot and, really, to nobody else.

This was Desmond who took the criticism when his returned happened, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most controversial hiring, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the return of the shameless one, who departed in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had his back. Gradually, Rodgers turned on the persuasion, delivered the victories and the trophies, and an uneasy truce with the supporters turned into 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, though.

It happened in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with added intensity, recently. He publicly commented about the sluggish process Celtic went about their transfer business, the endless waiting for prospects to be secured, then not landed, as was frequently the case as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he stated about the need for what he termed "agility" in the transfer window. Supporters agreed with him.

Even when the organization spent record amounts of money in a twelve-month period on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the significant further acquisition - none of whom have cut it so far, with one already having left - Rodgers pushed for more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion within the team and then walked away. When asked about his comments at his next media briefing he would usually minimize it and nearly reverse what he stated.

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

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that allegedly came from a source close to the club. It said that the manager was harming Celtic with his public outbursts and that his true aim was managing his exit strategy.

He desired not to be present and he was arranging his exit, this was the tone of the article.

Supporters were angered. They now saw him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his directors wouldn't support his plans to bring success.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was intended to harm him, which it accomplished. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a probe then we learned no more about it.

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

The frequent {gripes