🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes after Celtic issued the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a brief five-paragraph statement, the bombshell landed, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in apparent fury.

In 551-words, major shareholder Dermot Desmond savaged his former ally.

The man he convinced to come to the team when their rivals were gaining ground in that period and required being back in a box. And the man he once more relied on after the previous manager departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

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

Two decades after his exit from the club, and after much of his recent life was given over to an unending circuit of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a time. Based on things he has said recently, O'Neill has been eager to get another job. He'll view this role as the perfect opportunity, a gift from the club's legacy, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such success and adulation.

Will he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well reach out to contact Postecoglou, but O'Neill will act as a balm for the moment.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

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

This constituted a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a branding of him as untrustful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of misinformation; disruptive, deceptive and unacceptable. "A single person's desire for self-preservation at the expense of others," wrote Desmond.

For a person who prizes propriety and sets high importance in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete secrecy, this was a further example of how unusual things have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's most powerful presence, operates in the margins. The remote leader, the individual with the authority to make all the major decisions he wants without having the obligation of explaining them in any public forum.

He does not participate in team annual meetings, dispatching his offspring, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're glowing in tone. And even then, he's slow to communicate.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to defend the club with confidential missives to news outlets, but nothing is heard in public.

This is precisely how he's wanted it to be. And that's exactly what he contradicted when going full thermonuclear on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the team is that he stepped down, but reading his invective, carefully, one must question why did he permit it to reach such a critical point?

If the manager is guilty of all of the accusations that Desmond is alleging he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to inquire why was the manager not dismissed?

He has charged him of spinning information in open forums that did not tally with reality.

He says Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a toxic environment around the club and encouraged animosity towards individuals of the management and the directors. A portion of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

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

'Rodgers' Aspirations Conflicted with Celtic's Model Once More'

To return to better days, they were close, the two men. The manager lauded Desmond at every turn, thanked him every chance. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, truly, to nobody else.

It was the figure who took the criticism when his comeback happened, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most divisive hiring, the reappearance of the returning hero for a few or, as other supporters would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, Rodgers employed the charm, achieved the victories and the honors, and an fragile truce with the supporters became a love-in once more.

There was always - always - going to be a point when Rodgers' ambition clashed with Celtic's operational approach, though.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it happened again, with bells on, over the last year. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow process Celtic went about their player acquisitions, the interminable waiting for prospects to be landed, then not landed, as was too often the case as far as he was believed.

Time and again he stated about the need for what he called "flexibility" in the transfer window. Supporters agreed with him.

Despite the organization spent unprecedented sums of money in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the significant further acquisition - none of whom have cut it so far, with Idah already having left - Rodgers pushed for more and more and, often, he expressed this in public.

He set a controversy about a internal disunity inside the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his comments at his subsequent news conference he would usually minimize it and nearly contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It appeared like Rodgers was engaging in a risky game.

A few months back there was a story in a newspaper that allegedly originated from a insider close to the club. It said that the manager was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was orchestrating his departure plan.

He didn't want to be present and he was arranging his exit, 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 shield because his directors did not support his plans to achieve success.

This disclosure was damaging, of course, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a examination then we heard no more about it.

By then it was plain the manager was losing the support of the individuals in charge.

The frequent {gripes