🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes after Celtic issued the news of their manager's surprising resignation via a brief short statement, the howitzer arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in apparent fury.

Through 551-words, key investor Dermot Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

This individual he convinced to come to the club when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and needed putting in their place. And the figure he once more relied on after the previous manager departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of his critique, the jaw-dropping return of the former boss 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 circuit of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a time. Considering comments he has said lately, he has been keen to secure a new position. He'll view this one as the perfect chance, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the environment where he enjoyed such success and adulation.

Would he relinquish it readily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic might well reach out to contact Postecoglou, but the new appointment will act as a soothing presence for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest shocking moment was the brutal manner Desmond wrote of Rodgers.

This constituted a full-blooded endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of Rodgers as untrustful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a spreader of falsehoods; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "A single person's desire for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," stated he.

For a person who values decorum and sets high importance in dealings being done with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, this was another example of how unusual situations have grown at the club.

The major figure, the club's most powerful figure, operates in the background. The absentee totem, the one with the power to make all the major calls he pleases without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He does not attend club AGMs, sending his son, his son, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about the team unless they're glowing in tone. And still, he's reluctant to speak out.

He has been known on an rare moment to defend the organization with private missives to media organisations, but nothing is heard in the open.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to be. And that's just what he contradicted when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on Monday.

The directive from the club is that he stepped down, but reading his invective, carefully, you have to wonder why did he permit it to get such a critical point?

If Rodgers is culpable of every one of the accusations that the shareholder is claiming he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to inquire why was the coach not dismissed?

He has charged him of distorting things in open forums that did not tally with the facts.

He claims Rodgers' words "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the team and encouraged animosity towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. Some of the abuse aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and unacceptable."

What an extraordinary charge, that is. Lawyers might be mobilising as we speak.

'Rodgers' Ambition Conflicted with the Club's Strategy Again

Looking back to better days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers lauded the shareholder at every turn, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Rodgers deferred to Dermot and, really, to no one other.

It was Desmond who drew the heat when his returned occurred, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most divisive hiring, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as other supporters would have put it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the lurch for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, the manager turned on the charm, delivered the victories and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the supporters turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

There was always - always - going to be a point when his goals came in contact with Celtic's operational approach, though.

It happened in his first incarnation and it happened again, with bells on, recently. He spoke openly about the sluggish process the team went about their player acquisitions, the interminable delay for prospects to be landed, then missed, as was too often the case as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he spoke about the need for what he called "agility" in the transfer window. Supporters concurred with him.

Despite the organization spent record amounts of money in a twelve-month period on the expensive one signing, the £9m Adam Idah and the significant further acquisition - none of whom have cut it so far, with one already having departed - the manager pushed for increased resources and, oftentimes, he did it in public.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion within the team and then walked away. When asked about his remarks at his subsequent media briefing he would typically downplay it and nearly reverse what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It looked like he was playing a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a story in a newspaper that purportedly originated from a insider associated with the organization. It claimed that the manager was damaging the team with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was orchestrating his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be there and he was engineering his way out, that was the tone of the story.

Supporters were enraged. They then viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his shield because his directors wouldn't back his vision to achieve triumph.

This disclosure was poisonous, 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. If there was a examination then we learned no more about it.

At that point it was plain Rodgers was losing the backing of the individuals above him.

The frequent {gripes