🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour after Celtic released the announcement of their manager's shock departure via a brief short communication, the howitzer landed, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious anger.

Through an extensive statement, key investor Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

This individual he persuaded to join the club when their rivals were gaining ground in that period and needed putting in their place. Plus the man he once more relied on after the previous manager departed to another club in the recent offseason.

So intense was the ferocity of his takedown, the astonishing comeback of the former boss was almost an after-thought.

Two decades after his exit from the organization, and after much of his recent life was given over to an continuous circuit of appearances and the playing of all his old hits at the team, O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a while. Based on comments he has expressed recently, he has been eager to secure a new position. He will view this role as the ultimate chance, a present from the club's legacy, a return to the place where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Would he relinquish it easily? It seems unlikely. The club might well reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but the new appointment will serve as a soothing presence for the time being.

All-out Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's return - however strange as it is - can be parked because the most significant shocking moment was the harsh way the shareholder wrote of the former manager.

This constituted a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a labeling of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of falsehoods, a disseminator of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's desire for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," wrote Desmond.

For a person who values decorum and places great store in dealings being done with discretion, if not outright secrecy, this was another example of how unusual things have grown at the club.

Desmond, the club's most powerful figure, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the authority to take all the important calls he wants without having the responsibility of explaining them in any open setting.

He never participate in club annual meetings, dispatching his son, his son, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're glowing in nature. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to support the organization with confidential messages to news outlets, but no statement is made in public.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to remain. And that's exactly what he went against when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on Monday.

The directive from the club is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing his invective, line by line, you have to wonder why did he allow it to get such a critical point?

If the manager is guilty of every one of the accusations that Desmond is claiming he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to inquire why was the manager not dismissed?

Desmond has accused him of distorting information in public that were inconsistent with the facts.

He claims his statements "played a part to a toxic atmosphere around the team and fuelled animosity 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 unjustified and unacceptable."

What an extraordinary charge, that is. Lawyers might be preparing as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Clashed with the Club's Model Again

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

It was Desmond who drew the heat when Rodgers' comeback happened, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most divisive hiring, the reappearance of the prodigal son for a few or, as other supporters would have put it, the return of the shameless one, who departed in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, Rodgers employed the persuasion, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an uneasy peace with the fans became a affectionate relationship once more.

There was always - consistently - going to be a moment when Rodgers' ambition clashed with Celtic's business model, though.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it happened again, with bells on, recently. He publicly commented about the slow way the team conducted their player acquisitions, the endless waiting for targets to be secured, then missed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Time and again he stated about the need for what he called "flexibility" in the transfer window. The fans concurred with him.

Even when the organization splurged record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the £9m another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - all of whom have performed well so far, with one already having left - Rodgers demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He set a bomb about a internal disunity within the team and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his next media briefing he would typically downplay it and nearly reverse what he said.

Internal issues? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It looked like Rodgers was engaging in a dangerous strategy.

A few months back there was a report in a publication that purportedly originated from a insider associated with the organization. It said that the manager was harming the team with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be there and he was engineering his exit, that was the tone of the article.

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

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to hurt him, which it did. He demanded for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be dismissed. If there was a probe then we learned nothing further about it.

By then it was clear the manager was shedding the backing of the individuals above him.

The frequent {gripes