🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour following the club released the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the howitzer arrived, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious fury.

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

This individual he persuaded to join the club when Rangers were getting uppity in that period and required being in their place. And the man he again turned to after the previous manager left for another club in the recent offseason.

Such was the ferocity of his critique, the jaw-dropping return of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

Twenty years after his departure from the club, and after a large part of his recent life was dedicated to an unending circuit of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his old hits at Celtic, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a time. Considering things he has said recently, he has been eager to get another job. He'll view this one as the ultimate opportunity, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he experienced such glory and adulation.

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

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's return - as surreal as it is - can be parked because the biggest shocking moment was the harsh manner the shareholder wrote of Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful attempt at character assassination, a labeling of him as deceitful, a source of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the cost of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For somebody who prizes decorum and places great store in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, this was a further example of how abnormal situations have become at the club.

The major figure, the club's most powerful presence, moves in the background. The remote leader, the one with the authority to take all the major decisions he wants without having the responsibility of explaining them in any public forum.

He does not attend team AGMs, dispatching his son, Ross, in his place. He rarely, if ever, does interviews about the team unless they're glowing in tone. And even then, he's slow 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 exactly what he went against when going full thermonuclear on the manager on that day.

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

Assuming Rodgers is guilty of every one of the things that Desmond is alleging he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to ask why was the coach not dismissed?

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

He claims Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a toxic environment around the team and encouraged animosity towards individuals of the management and the board. Some of the abuse aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

Such an remarkable allegation, that is. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

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

Looking back to better times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager praised Desmond at every turn, thanked him every chance. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, really, to nobody else.

It was the figure who took the heat when his comeback occurred, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most controversial hiring, the reappearance of the returning hero for a few or, as other supporters would have put it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had his back. Over time, Rodgers turned on the charm, achieved the victories and the honors, and an uneasy truce with the fans became a love-in again.

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

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with added intensity, recently. Rodgers publicly commented about the slow process Celtic conducted their transfer business, the endless waiting for prospects to be secured, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was concerned.

Repeatedly he spoke about the need for what he termed "flexibility" in the transfer window. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the club spent unprecedented sums of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the costly another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - all of whom have performed well so far, with Idah already having left - the manager pushed for increased resources and, often, he expressed this in openly.

He planted a bomb about a internal disunity inside the club and then walked away. Upon questioning about his comments at his next news conference he would typically downplay it and nearly contradict what he stated.

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

A few months back there was a story in a newspaper that allegedly came from a insider associated with the club. It claimed that Rodgers was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his true aim was managing his exit strategy.

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

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

This disclosure was poisonous, naturally, and it was meant to hurt him, which it accomplished. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

At that point it was plain Rodgers was shedding the support of the individuals in charge.

The frequent {gripes