🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour following the club issued the news of their manager's shock departure via a brief short communication, the bombshell arrived, from the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious fury.

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

This individual he persuaded to come to the club when Rangers were getting uppity in 2016 and required being in their place. Plus the figure he again turned to after Ange Postecoglou left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of Desmond's critique, the astonishing return of the former boss was almost an after-thought.

Two decades after his departure from the club, and after a large part of his recent life was dedicated to an unending series of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his past successes at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

For now - and perhaps for a while. Considering things he has said lately, he has been keen to get another job. He'll view this one as the ultimate chance, a present from the club's legacy, a return to the environment where he experienced such success and praise.

Would he relinquish it readily? It seems unlikely. The club could possibly make a call to sound out their ex-manager, but O'Neill will act as a soothing presence for the time being.

All-out Effort at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the biggest shocking moment was the harsh way Desmond described the former manager.

This constituted a full-blooded attempt at defamation, a labeling of Rodgers as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a disseminator of misinformation; disruptive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's desire for self-preservation at the expense of others," wrote he.

For somebody who values decorum and places great store in business being done with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, here was a further illustration of how abnormal things 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 important decisions he pleases without having the responsibility of explaining them in any open setting.

He never attend team AGMs, sending his son, his son, instead. He rarely, if ever, does interviews about Celtic unless they're glowing in tone. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

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

It's exactly how he's preferred it to be. And that's exactly what he went against when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the team is that he stepped down, but reading Desmond's criticism, carefully, you have to wonder why he permit it to reach such a critical point?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of all of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's responsible for, then it's fair to inquire why had been the coach not dismissed?

He has accused him of spinning information in public that did not tally with the facts.

He claims his statements "played a part to a toxic atmosphere around the club and encouraged hostility towards members of the executive team and the directors. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unwarranted and unacceptable."

What an extraordinary charge, indeed. Lawyers might be preparing as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Ambition Conflicted with the Club's Strategy Once More'

Looking back to happier times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager praised Desmond at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Rodgers respected him and, really, to no one other.

This was the figure who drew the heat when Rodgers' comeback happened, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most controversial appointment, the reappearance of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other supporters would have described it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had his back. Gradually, Rodgers employed the charm, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the fans became a love-in once more.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a point when his ambition came in contact with the club's business model, though.

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired once more, with bells on, recently. He spoke openly about the sluggish way Celtic went about their transfer business, the endless delay for targets to be landed, then not landed, as was too often the case as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he spoke about the need for what he called "agility" in the market. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the club spent record amounts of funds in a calendar year on the expensive one signing, the £9m another player and the significant Auston Trusty - all of whom have performed well so far, with one since having departed - Rodgers demanded increased resources and, oftentimes, he expressed this in public.

He planted a bomb about a internal disunity inside the club and then walked away. Upon questioning about his comments at his next news conference he would typically downplay it and nearly contradict what he stated.

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

A few months back there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly originated from a source close to the club. It said that Rodgers was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was managing his exit strategy.

He desired not to be there and he was engineering his way out, that was the implication of the story.

The fans were angered. They then saw him as similar to a martyr who might be carried out on his honor because his board members wouldn't support his plans to achieve success.

This disclosure was poisonous, naturally, and it was meant to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He demanded for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. If there was a examination then we heard nothing further about it.

At that point it was plain Rodgers was losing the support of the people in charge.

The frequent {gripes