🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour after Celtic released the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the bombshell landed, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in obvious fury.

Through an extensive statement, major shareholder Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

This individual he convinced to join the club when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and required being in their place. And the figure he once more turned to after the previous manager departed to another club in the recent offseason.

So intense was the severity of Desmond's takedown, the astonishing return of Martin O'Neill was almost an secondary note.

Two decades after his departure from the organization, and after much of his latter years was given over to an unending series of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his past successes at the team, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a while. Considering comments he has expressed recently, he has been eager to secure another job. He'll view this role as the perfect opportunity, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

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

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it is - can be parked because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the brutal manner the shareholder described Rodgers.

This constituted a full-blooded attempt at defamation, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of untruths, a spreader of falsehoods; disruptive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "One individual's wish 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 outright privacy, this was another illustration of how abnormal situations have become at the club.

The major figure, the organization's dominant presence, operates in the margins. The remote leader, the individual with the authority to take all the important decisions he wants without having the obligation of explaining them in any public forum.

He does not attend team AGMs, sending his son, Ross, instead. He seldom, if ever, does media talks about the team unless they're glowing in tone. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to defend the club with private messages to media organisations, but no statement is heard in public.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to be. And that's exactly what he contradicted when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on Monday.

The directive from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reviewing Desmond's invective, line by line, you have to wonder why he permit it to reach such a critical point?

If the manager is guilty of all of the accusations that the shareholder is alleging he's guilty of, then it's fair to inquire why had been the manager not removed?

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

He claims Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a hostile environment around the club and encouraged animosity towards members of the management and the directors. Some of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

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

'Rodgers' Ambition Clashed with the Club's Model Again

To return to better times, they were close, the two men. Rodgers lauded Desmond at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to him and, really, to nobody else.

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

This marked the most controversial hiring, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as some other supporters would have put it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the lurch for Leicester.

Desmond had his support. Gradually, Rodgers turned on the persuasion, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the supporters became a affectionate relationship again.

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

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired again, with added intensity, over the last year. He spoke openly about the slow process Celtic conducted their player acquisitions, the interminable waiting for targets to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was concerned.

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

Despite the organization splurged record amounts of money in a calendar year on the £11m one signing, the costly Adam Idah and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have cut it to date, with Idah since having departed - Rodgers demanded more and more and, often, he did it in public.

He planted a controversy about a internal disunity within the team and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his next media briefing he would usually minimize it and nearly reverse what he said.

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

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

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

The fans were angered. They then viewed him as similar to a martyr who might be removed on his shield because his directors wouldn't support his vision to achieve success.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to hurt him, which it accomplished. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a probe then we heard no more about it.

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

The regular {gripes