🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes following Celtic issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a perfunctory short statement, the howitzer arrived, from Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in apparent anger.

Through an extensive statement, major shareholder Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

This individual he convinced to come to the team when Rangers were gaining ground in that period and needed putting in their place. And the figure he once more relied on after the previous manager left for another club in the recent offseason.

Such was the ferocity of his takedown, the astonishing return of the former boss was practically an secondary note.

Two decades after his exit from the club, and after a large part of his latter years was dedicated to an continuous circuit of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his past successes at the team, O'Neill is back in the dugout.

Currently - and maybe for a while. Considering things he has expressed lately, O'Neill has been keen to get another job. He'll view this role as the perfect chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he experienced such success and adulation.

Will he give it up readily? It seems unlikely. The club could possibly reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but the new appointment will act as a soothing presence for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

O'Neill's reappearance - however strange as it is - can be set aside because the most significant 'wow!' moment was the brutal way Desmond wrote of the former manager.

It was a full-blooded attempt at defamation, a branding of him as untrustful, a source of untruths, a disseminator of falsehoods; disruptive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "One individual's desire for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For somebody who values propriety and places great store in dealings being done with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, this was a further example of how unusual things have grown at the club.

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

He never attend team AGMs, sending his offspring, his son, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're glowing in tone. And still, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to support the club with confidential missives to news outlets, but no statement is heard in the open.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to be. And it's exactly what he went against when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on Monday.

The directive from the team is that he resigned, but reviewing Desmond's invective, line by line, you have to wonder why he allow it to get such a critical point?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of every one of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's responsible for, then it's fair to ask why had been the manager not removed?

He has accused him of spinning information in public that were inconsistent with the facts.

He claims his words "have contributed to a hostile environment around the team and fuelled hostility towards members of the executive team and the board. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

Such an remarkable charge, that is. Legal representatives might be preparing as we speak.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Model Again

Looking back to happier days, they were close, the two men. The manager lauded Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to him and, really, to no one other.

It was Desmond who drew the criticism when Rodgers' comeback happened, after the previous manager.

This marked the most divisive appointment, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as some other supporters would have put it, the return of the shameless one, who left them in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had his support. Over time, the manager employed the persuasion, achieved the victories and the honors, and an fragile truce with the supporters became a affectionate relationship once more.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a point when his ambition came in contact with the club's operational approach, though.

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired once more, with bells on, over the last year. Rodgers spoke openly about the sluggish process the team went about their player acquisitions, the interminable delay for targets to be landed, then missed, as was frequently the case as far as he was believed.

Time and again he spoke about the necessity for what he termed "flexibility" in the transfer window. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the club spent unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the significant Auston Trusty - none of whom have cut it so far, with one already having left - Rodgers pushed for more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in public.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion within the club and then walked away. When asked about his remarks at his subsequent media briefing he would usually minimize it and almost contradict what he said.

Internal issues? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It appeared like he was playing a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that allegedly came from a insider close to the club. It claimed that the manager was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his true aim was managing his departure plan.

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

Supporters were angered. They then saw him as similar to a martyr who might be carried out on his honor because his board members did not back his plans to bring triumph.

The leak was poisonous, naturally, and it was intended to harm Rodgers, which it accomplished. He called for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be removed. If there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

At that point it was plain Rodgers was losing the support of the people in charge.

The frequent {gripes