🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following Celtic issued the news of their manager's shock resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the howitzer landed, from Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in apparent anger.

In an extensive statement, major shareholder Desmond savaged his old chum.

This individual he persuaded to come to the team when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and needed putting back in a box. Plus the figure he again relied on after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

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

Two decades after his exit from the organization, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an unending series of appearances and the performance of all his old hits at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Considering things he has expressed recently, he has been eager to get another job. He'll see this role as the ultimate opportunity, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

Would he relinquish it easily? It seems unlikely. Celtic might well reach out to contact their ex-manager, but O'Neill will act as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's reappearance - as surreal as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest shocking moment was the brutal manner the shareholder wrote of the former manager.

This constituted a full-blooded attempt at character assassination, a branding of Rodgers as untrustful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, misleading and unacceptable. "A single person's desire for self-preservation at the expense of everyone else," wrote he.

For a person who values decorum and sets high importance in dealings being done with confidentiality, if not complete secrecy, this was a further example of how unusual situations have become at Celtic.

Desmond, the club's dominant figure, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the individual with the authority to take all the important decisions he pleases without having the obligation of justifying them in any open setting.

He does not participate in club annual meetings, dispatching his son, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're glowing in tone. And still, he's slow to speak out.

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

It's exactly how he's preferred it to remain. And that's just what he contradicted when going all-out attack on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reviewing Desmond's criticism, carefully, one must question why he allow it to get such a critical point?

If the manager is culpable of all of the things that Desmond is claiming he's guilty of, then it's fair to inquire why was the manager not removed?

Desmond has accused him of spinning things in open forums that were inconsistent with the facts.

He claims his statements "played a part to a toxic atmosphere around the club and fuelled hostility towards individuals of the executive team 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 charge, indeed. Lawyers might be mobilising as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Clashed with the Club's Model Once More'

To return to better times, they were tight, the two men. Rodgers praised Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to him and, really, to nobody else.

This was the figure who took the criticism when Rodgers' returned happened, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most controversial appointment, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have put it, the return of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

Desmond had his back. Over time, Rodgers turned on the charm, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an uneasy truce with the supporters became a affectionate relationship again.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a point when his goals came in contact with Celtic's business model, however.

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired again, with added intensity, over the last year. Rodgers publicly commented about the slow way Celtic went about their player acquisitions, the endless delay for targets to be secured, then not landed, as was frequently the case as far as he was believed.

Time and again he stated about the need for what he termed "flexibility" in the market. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the organization spent record amounts of funds in a calendar year on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have cut it so far, with one already having left - Rodgers demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He planted a controversy about a lack of cohesion within the team and then walked away. Upon questioning about his comments at his subsequent news conference he would usually minimize it and nearly contradict what he said.

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

A few months back there was a story in a newspaper that purportedly came from a insider associated with the club. It claimed that Rodgers was damaging the team with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was orchestrating his departure plan.

He didn't want to be present and he was engineering his exit, this was the implication of the story.

Supporters were enraged. They now viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his board members did not back his plans to achieve triumph.

This disclosure was poisonous, naturally, and it was intended to harm him, which it accomplished. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. Whether there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

At that point it was clear the manager was shedding the backing of the individuals above him.

The frequent {gripes