🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour following the club issued the announcement of their manager's surprising departure via a perfunctory short statement, the howitzer landed, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious anger.

Through an extensive statement, key investor Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

This individual he convinced to come to the team when their rivals were gaining ground in that period and needed putting in their place. And the man he again turned to after the previous manager departed to another club in the recent offseason.

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

Two decades after his departure from the club, and after a large part of his latter years was given over to an continuous circuit of appearances and the playing of all his old hits at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and maybe for a time. Based on things he has said lately, he has been keen to secure a new position. He will see this role as the ultimate opportunity, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he experienced such glory and praise.

Will he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic could possibly reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but the new appointment will act as a soothing presence for the time being.

'Full-blooded Effort at Character Assassination

O'Neill's reappearance - however strange as it is - can be parked because the biggest shocking development was the brutal manner the shareholder described Rodgers.

This constituted a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a branding of him as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, misleading and unjustifiable. "One individual's desire for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," stated he.

For a person who prizes decorum and sets high importance in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, this was a further example of how abnormal things have grown at the club.

The major figure, the club's dominant presence, operates in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the power to make all the important calls he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He does not attend team annual meetings, dispatching his offspring, his son, instead. He rarely, if ever, gives interviews about the team unless they're hagiographic 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 missives to news outlets, but nothing is heard in public.

This is precisely how he's wanted it to be. And it's just what he contradicted when launching full thermonuclear on the manager on that day.

The directive from the team is that he resigned, but reading his criticism, line by line, one must question why he permit it to get such a critical point?

If Rodgers is guilty of all of the accusations that Desmond is claiming he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to ask why was the manager not dismissed?

Desmond has accused him of spinning information in public that were inconsistent with the facts.

He says Rodgers' words "have contributed to a toxic environment around the team and fuelled hostility towards individuals of the management and the board. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unwarranted and improper."

What an extraordinary allegation, that is. Lawyers might be mobilising as we speak.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Conflicted with Celtic's Strategy Again

Looking back to happier days, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded Desmond at every turn, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan respected Dermot and, really, to no one other.

This was the figure who drew the criticism when his comeback happened, after the previous manager.

This marked the most divisive hiring, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as some other supporters would have described it, the return of the shameless one, who left them in the lurch for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, the manager turned on the charm, achieved the victories and the honors, and an fragile truce with the supporters turned into a love-in again.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a point when his ambition came in contact with Celtic's operational approach, however.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it happened again, with bells on, recently. He spoke openly about the sluggish way Celtic went about their transfer business, the interminable delay for targets to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he stated about the necessity for what he termed "flexibility" in the market. Supporters concurred with him.

Despite the organization splurged record amounts of money in a twelve-month period on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the significant further acquisition - all of whom have cut it so far, with Idah already having left - Rodgers demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He set a controversy about a internal disunity inside the club and then walked away. When asked about his remarks at his next media briefing he would usually downplay it and nearly reverse what he said.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, all are united, he'd say. It appeared like Rodgers was engaging in a dangerous game.

Earlier this year there was a story in a newspaper that purportedly originated from a insider associated with the organization. It said that the manager was harming the team with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his exit strategy.

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

Supporters were enraged. They then saw him as akin to a martyr who might be removed on his honor because his board members did not support his plans to achieve triumph.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was intended to harm Rodgers, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a examination then we learned no more about it.

By then it was clear Rodgers was losing the backing of the people above him.

The frequent {gripes