🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes after the club released the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the bombshell landed, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious anger.

In 551-words, major shareholder Dermot Desmond eviscerated 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. Plus the figure he once more turned to after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

So intense was the ferocity of his critique, the astonishing comeback of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

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

For now - and perhaps for a while. Considering things he has said recently, he has been eager to secure another job. He'll see this role as the ultimate opportunity, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the place where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Will he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic might well reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the time being.

All-out Effort at Character Assassination

O'Neill's reappearance - however strange as it is - can be parked because the most significant shocking moment was the brutal manner the shareholder wrote of Rodgers.

It was a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of Rodgers as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, misleading and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-preservation at the expense of others," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who values propriety and places great store in dealings being done with discretion, if not complete secrecy, this was a further example of how unusual things have become at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's dominant figure, moves in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the authority to take all the major decisions he pleases without having the obligation of explaining them in any open setting.

He never attend club AGMs, sending his son, his son, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're glowing in nature. And even then, he's reluctant to communicate.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the organization with confidential messages to media organisations, but no statement is heard in the open.

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

The official line from the club is that he stepped down, but reviewing Desmond's invective, carefully, you have to wonder why he allow it to get this far down the line?

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

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

He says Rodgers' words "played a part to a hostile environment around the team and fuelled animosity towards members of the management and the directors. Some of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

What an remarkable charge, that is. Lawyers might be preparing as we speak.

His Ambition Conflicted with the Club's Strategy Once More'

Looking back to better days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers praised Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, truly, to no one other.

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

It was the most controversial hiring, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as other supporters would have described it, the return of the shameless one, who departed in the lurch for Leicester.

The shareholder had his back. Over time, the manager turned on the charm, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a point when his ambition clashed with Celtic's business model, though.

It happened in his first incarnation and it happened again, with added intensity, over the last year. He spoke openly about the slow process the team conducted their transfer business, the interminable delay for prospects to be secured, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he stated about the necessity for what he called "flexibility" in the transfer window. Supporters agreed with him.

Despite the organization spent unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the expensive one signing, the costly Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have cut it so far, with one already having departed - the manager demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in public.

He set a controversy about a lack of cohesion inside the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his comments at his next media briefing he would typically downplay it and nearly reverse what he stated.

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

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that allegedly came from a source close to the club. It claimed that Rodgers was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was orchestrating his exit strategy.

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

Supporters were angered. They now saw him as akin to a martyr who might be removed on his honor because his directors wouldn't support his vision to bring success.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was meant to harm him, which it did. He called for an investigation and for the guilty person to be removed. Whether there was a examination then we learned nothing further about it.

By then it was plain the manager was losing the backing of the people above him.

The frequent {gripes