🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes after the club released the news of their manager's surprising resignation via a perfunctory short communication, the howitzer landed, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious anger.

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

The man he convinced to come to the team when Rangers were getting uppity in that period and needed putting in their place. Plus the man he again turned to after the previous manager departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

So intense was the severity of his critique, the jaw-dropping return of Martin O'Neill was practically an secondary note.

Two decades after his departure from the club, and after much of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous series of appearances and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

Currently - and maybe for a while. Considering things he has said recently, O'Neill has been keen to secure another job. He will view this one as the perfect opportunity, a present from the club's legacy, a return to the place where he experienced such success and praise.

Would he relinquish it easily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic might well make a call to contact their ex-manager, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the harsh way Desmond described the former manager.

This constituted a full-blooded endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of Rodgers as untrustful, a source of untruths, a disseminator of falsehoods; disruptive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For somebody who prizes propriety and places great store in business being done with discretion, if not complete secrecy, this was a further illustration of how abnormal situations have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's dominant presence, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the individual with the power to make all the important calls he pleases without having the responsibility of explaining them in any public forum.

He does not attend club annual meetings, sending his son, Ross, instead. He seldom, if ever, does interviews about the team unless they're hagiographic in tone. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an rare moment to support the club with private messages to media organisations, but nothing is heard in the open.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to remain. And it's just what he went against when launching all-out attack on the manager on that day.

The official line from the club is that he stepped down, but reading Desmond's criticism, line by line, one must question why he permit it to reach such a critical point?

Assuming the manager is culpable of every one of the things that Desmond is alleging he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to inquire why was the coach not removed?

Desmond has charged him of distorting things in public that did not tally with the facts.

He says Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a hostile environment around the club and fuelled animosity towards members of the executive team and the board. Some of the abuse aimed at them, and at their families, has been completely unwarranted and unacceptable."

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

'Rodgers' Ambition Clashed with Celtic's Model Once More'

Looking back to happier times, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded Desmond at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Rodgers deferred to Dermot and, really, to nobody else.

This was the figure who drew the heat when Rodgers' comeback occurred, after the previous manager.

This marked the most controversial appointment, the reappearance of the returning hero for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have put it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had his support. Gradually, the manager employed the charm, delivered the victories and the honors, and an fragile peace with the supporters turned into a affectionate relationship again.

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

It happened in his initial tenure and it happened again, with bells on, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the sluggish process the team conducted their transfer business, the endless delay for targets to be landed, then missed, as was too often the case as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he stated about the necessity for what he called "agility" in the transfer window. Supporters concurred with him.

Despite the club splurged record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have cut it to date, with one already having departed - the manager pushed for more and more and, often, he did it in public.

He set a controversy about a internal disunity within the team and then walked away. When asked about his remarks at his next news conference he would usually downplay it and almost reverse what he stated.

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

Earlier this year there was a story in a newspaper that purportedly came from a insider associated with the club. It said that the manager was harming the team with his open criticisms and that his true aim was managing his exit strategy.

He desired not to be present and he was arranging his way out, this was the tone of the story.

The fans were angered. They now viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his directors wouldn't back his vision to bring success.

The leak was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to harm him, which it accomplished. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a examination then we heard nothing further about it.

By then it was clear Rodgers was shedding the backing of the people in charge.

The frequent {gripes