🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following the club issued the announcement of their manager's shock departure via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the bombshell arrived, from the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious fury.

In 551-words, major shareholder Desmond savaged his former ally.

The man he convinced to come to the club when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and needed putting in their place. And the figure he again turned to after the previous manager left for another club in the recent offseason.

Such was the ferocity of Desmond's takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

Two decades after his departure from the club, and after a large part of his latter years was given over to an unending series of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his past successes at the team, Martin O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and maybe for a time. Considering things he has expressed recently, O'Neill has been keen to secure a new position. He'll view this role as the perfect opportunity, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the environment where he experienced such glory and adulation.

Will he relinquish it readily? It seems unlikely. The club might well make a call to sound out their ex-manager, but O'Neill will act as a soothing presence for the moment.

'Full-blooded Effort at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - as surreal as it is - can be set aside because the biggest shocking development was the brutal manner Desmond wrote of the former manager.

It was a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of him as untrustful, a source of untruths, a spreader of falsehoods; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-interest at the cost of everyone else," stated he.

For a person who values decorum and sets high importance in business being conducted with discretion, if not complete secrecy, this was a further illustration of how abnormal situations have become at Celtic.

The major figure, the organization's dominant figure, moves in the background. The remote leader, the individual with the authority to make all the important calls he wants without having the obligation of explaining them in any public forum.

He never attend team AGMs, sending his offspring, Ross, in his place. He rarely, if ever, gives media talks about the team unless they're hagiographic in tone. And even then, he's slow to communicate.

He has been known on an occasion or two to support the club with confidential missives to news outlets, but nothing is heard in public.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to remain. And that's just what he contradicted when going full thermonuclear on Rodgers on Monday.

The directive from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading his invective, line by line, one must question why did he permit it to get such a critical point?

If the manager 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 manager not removed?

Desmond has accused him of distorting information in public that did not tally with the facts.

He says Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a hostile environment around the club and fuelled hostility towards members of the management and the board. A portion of the criticism directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

What an extraordinary allegation, that is. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we speak.

'Rodgers' Ambition Conflicted with the Club's Model Again

To return to happier days, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded the shareholder at every turn, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Brendan respected him and, truly, to nobody else.

This was the figure who drew the criticism when Rodgers' returned happened, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most divisive appointment, the return 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 lurch for Leicester.

The shareholder had his back. Over time, Rodgers employed the charm, achieved the wins and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the supporters turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a point when Rodgers' goals came in contact with Celtic's operational approach, though.

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with bells on, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the sluggish process Celtic went about their transfer business, the endless delay for targets to be landed, then missed, as was too often the case as far as he was believed.

Time and again he stated about the necessity for what he called "agility" in the market. Supporters agreed with him.

Despite the club spent unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the expensive Arne Engels, the costly another player and the significant further acquisition - none of whom have cut it to date, with one since having departed - Rodgers demanded more and more and, often, he expressed this in openly.

He planted a controversy about a lack of cohesion inside the team and then walked away. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent news conference he would usually minimize it and almost contradict what he said.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It appeared like Rodgers was playing a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that purportedly originated from a source associated with the club. It said that the manager was damaging the team 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 tone of the article.

Supporters were enraged. They then saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his shield because his board members wouldn't back his plans to bring triumph.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was intended to harm him, which it did. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a examination then we heard nothing further about it.

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

The frequent {gripes