🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes after the club issued the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a brief five-paragraph statement, the bombshell arrived, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in obvious anger.

In an extensive statement, key investor Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

The man he persuaded to join the club when Rangers were gaining ground in that period and required being in their place. And the man he once more relied on after Ange Postecoglou departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

So intense was the ferocity of Desmond's critique, the jaw-dropping return of Martin O'Neill was almost an after-thought.

Two decades after his departure from the club, and after much of his recent life was given over to an unending series of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his old hits at the team, Martin O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a while. Considering comments he has said recently, O'Neill has been eager to secure another job. He will view this role as the perfect chance, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the place where he experienced such success and praise.

Would he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Effort at Character Assassination

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

This constituted a full-blooded endeavor at character assassination, a branding of him as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a spreader of misinformation; disruptive, misleading and unjustifiable. "A single person's desire for self-preservation at the expense of others," stated Desmond.

For a person who values decorum and places great store in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, here was a further example of how abnormal things have grown at the club.

Desmond, the organization's most powerful presence, moves in the background. The remote leader, the one with the power to take all the important calls he pleases without having the responsibility of explaining them in any open setting.

He never attend team annual meetings, dispatching his son, Ross, instead. He rarely, if ever, does interviews about Celtic unless they're glowing in nature. And even then, he's slow to speak out.

He has been known on an occasion or two to defend the club with confidential missives to news outlets, but no statement is made in the open.

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

The official line from the team is that Rodgers resigned, but reading Desmond's criticism, line by line, one must question why he allow it to reach such a critical point?

If the manager is culpable of all of the accusations that the shareholder is alleging he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to inquire why had been the coach not dismissed?

Desmond has accused him of distorting things in public that did not tally with the facts.

He claims his statements "have contributed to a toxic atmosphere around the team and encouraged hostility towards members of the management and the board. Some of the criticism directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unwarranted and improper."

Such an extraordinary allegation, that is. Legal representatives might be preparing as we speak.

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

Looking back to better days, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers praised Desmond at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Rodgers respected him and, really, to no one other.

This was Desmond who took the heat when Rodgers' returned occurred, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most divisive hiring, the return of the returning hero for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have put it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Gradually, the manager employed the charm, delivered the victories and the honors, and an fragile peace with the fans turned into a love-in again.

There was always - always - going to be a moment when his goals clashed with the club's operational approach, however.

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with bells on, over the last year. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow way Celtic conducted their transfer business, the interminable waiting for prospects to be secured, then missed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Time and again he spoke about the need for what he termed "flexibility" in the market. Supporters concurred with him.

Even when the club spent record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the expensive Arne Engels, the costly another player and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have cut it so far, with one already having left - the manager demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He set a bomb about a internal disunity inside the team and then distanced himself. When asked about his comments at his subsequent news conference he would typically downplay it and nearly reverse what he said.

Internal issues? Not at all, all are united, he'd claim. It looked like he was playing a risky game.

A few months back there was a story in a publication that allegedly came from a insider associated with the club. It claimed that Rodgers was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was orchestrating his departure plan.

He desired not to be there and he was arranging his exit, this was the implication of the article.

The fans were angered. They now saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his directors wouldn't support his vision to achieve triumph.

The leak was poisonous, naturally, and it was intended to hurt him, which it did. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a probe then we heard no more about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was shedding the backing of the people in charge.

The frequent {gripes