🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following Celtic issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a brief short communication, the howitzer arrived, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in apparent anger.

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

This individual he persuaded to join the team when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and needed putting back in a box. And the figure he once more turned to after Ange Postecoglou left for another club in the recent offseason.

So intense was the severity of his critique, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

Twenty years after his departure from the organization, and after much of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous series of appearances and the playing of all his old hits at the team, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

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

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

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

O'Neill's reappearance - as surreal as it is - can be set aside because the most significant shocking development was the brutal way the shareholder described Rodgers.

This constituted a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a branding of him as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a spreader of falsehoods; divisive, misleading and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," stated he.

For somebody who prizes propriety and places great store in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, here was another example of how unusual situations have grown at the club.

Desmond, the organization's dominant figure, moves in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the power to take all the major calls he pleases without having the obligation of explaining them in any public forum.

He never attend club annual meetings, sending his offspring, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, does interviews about the team unless they're hagiographic in nature. And still, he's slow to communicate.

He has been known on an rare moment to defend the organization with private missives to news outlets, but nothing is made in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to remain. And that's just what he went against when launching all-out attack on the manager on Monday.

The official line from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reviewing Desmond's criticism, carefully, one must question why he allow it to get this far down the line?

If Rodgers is guilty of every one of the accusations that Desmond is claiming he's responsible for, then it's fair to inquire why had been the manager not removed?

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

He says Rodgers' words "played a part to a toxic environment around the team and fuelled animosity towards individuals of the management and the board. Some of the abuse aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and unacceptable."

What an extraordinary allegation, indeed. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we discuss.

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

Looking back to happier times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers praised the shareholder at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Rodgers deferred to Dermot and, truly, to no one other.

It was Desmond who drew the heat when his comeback occurred, after the previous manager.

This marked the most divisive hiring, the return of the returning hero for some supporters or, as some other supporters would have described it, the arrival of the shameless one, who departed in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had his back. Gradually, the manager employed the charm, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the fans turned into a love-in once more.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a moment when his goals came in contact with the club's business model, though.

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired again, with bells on, recently. Rodgers publicly commented about the slow way Celtic went about their player acquisitions, the endless delay for prospects to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was believed.

Time and again he stated about the need for what he termed "flexibility" in the transfer window. Supporters concurred with him.

Even when the organization splurged unprecedented sums of money in a calendar year on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have performed well so far, with Idah already having left - Rodgers pushed for increased resources and, often, he did it in public.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion within the team and then walked away. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent media briefing he would typically minimize it and nearly contradict what he said.

Internal issues? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It appeared like he was engaging in a dangerous strategy.

A few months back there was a story in a publication that allegedly came from a source associated with the club. It claimed that the manager was damaging Celtic with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was orchestrating his exit strategy.

He desired not to be present and he was engineering his exit, that was the implication of the article.

The fans were enraged. They now saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his directors wouldn't support his plans to bring success.

The leak was damaging, of course, and it was meant to hurt him, which it accomplished. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. Whether there was a examination then we heard no more about it.

By then it was clear Rodgers was losing the support of the individuals in charge.

The regular {gripes