🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes following Celtic released the announcement of their manager's shock resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the howitzer landed, from Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in obvious anger.

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

The man he persuaded to come to the team when their rivals were getting uppity in that period and needed putting back in a box. Plus the figure he again turned to after the previous manager departed to another club in the recent offseason.

So intense was the ferocity of his critique, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was practically an secondary note.

Two decades after his exit from the organization, and after a large part of his latter years was dedicated to an continuous series of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

Currently - and perhaps for a time. Based on comments he has said lately, he has been keen to get another job. He'll see this one as the ultimate opportunity, a gift from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the place where he experienced such glory and praise.

Will he relinquish it easily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic might well make a call to sound out Postecoglou, but O'Neill will serve as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Effort at Character Assassination

O'Neill's reappearance - as surreal as it may be - can be parked because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the brutal manner the shareholder described Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of Rodgers as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "A single person's wish for self-preservation at the expense of others," stated he.

For somebody who values propriety and sets high importance in dealings being conducted with discretion, if not complete secrecy, here was a further example of how abnormal situations have grown at Celtic.

Desmond, the club's most powerful figure, operates in the margins. The absentee totem, the individual with the authority to take all the major calls he wants without having the responsibility of explaining them in any open setting.

He does not attend club AGMs, sending his son, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, does media talks about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in nature. And even then, he's slow to communicate.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to support the club with private messages to media organisations, but nothing is made in public.

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

The official line from the team is that Rodgers resigned, but reading his criticism, line by line, you have to wonder why did he permit it to reach this far down the line?

If the manager is guilty of every one of the things that Desmond is alleging he's responsible for, then it's fair to ask why had been the manager not dismissed?

Desmond has charged him of distorting things in public that were inconsistent with reality.

He says Rodgers' words "have contributed to a toxic environment around the club and encouraged animosity towards individuals 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 remarkable allegation, indeed. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

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

To return to better days, they were tight, the two men. The manager praised Desmond at every turn, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, really, to no one other.

This was the figure who took the heat when his returned occurred, after the previous manager.

It was the most controversial appointment, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as other Celtic fans would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the lurch for Leicester.

The shareholder had his back. Gradually, the manager employed the charm, achieved the wins and the honors, and an fragile truce with the supporters became a love-in again.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a moment when his goals clashed with Celtic's business model, however.

It happened in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with added intensity, over the last year. He spoke openly about the slow process Celtic conducted their player acquisitions, the endless waiting for targets to be secured, then missed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was concerned.

Repeatedly he spoke about the need for what he called "flexibility" in the market. Supporters concurred with him.

Despite the organization splurged record amounts of funds in a calendar year on the expensive one signing, the £9m another player and the significant further acquisition - all of whom have performed well to date, with Idah already having left - Rodgers demanded more and more and, often, he expressed this in openly.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion inside the team and then walked away. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent news conference he would typically minimize it and almost reverse what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It looked like he was playing a dangerous strategy.

A few months back there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly originated from a insider associated with the organization. It claimed that the manager was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was orchestrating his exit strategy.

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

The fans were angered. They now viewed him as similar to a martyr who might be carried out on his shield because his directors did not back his vision to achieve success.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it accomplished. He demanded for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a probe then we learned nothing further about it.

By then it was plain the manager was shedding the backing of the people in charge.

The regular {gripes