🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes after Celtic released the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the howitzer landed, courtesy of the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in apparent fury.

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

This individual he convinced to come to the club when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and required being in their place. And the man he once more relied on after the previous manager departed to another club in the recent offseason.

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

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

For now - and perhaps for a while. Based on things he has said lately, he has been keen to get another job. He'll see this one as the perfect chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the place where he enjoyed such success and adulation.

Will he relinquish it readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic could possibly make a call to contact their ex-manager, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the moment.

'Full-blooded Effort at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - as surreal as it may be - can be parked because the most significant 'wow!' moment was the harsh manner Desmond wrote of Rodgers.

It was a forceful attempt at defamation, a labeling of Rodgers as untrustful, a source of falsehoods, a disseminator of misinformation; disruptive, deceptive and unacceptable. "A single person's desire for self-interest at the expense of others," wrote Desmond.

For a person who values decorum and places great store in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not outright privacy, this was a further illustration of how abnormal things have become at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's dominant figure, operates in the margins. The absentee totem, the individual with the power to make all the important calls he wants without having the responsibility of explaining them in any public forum.

He does not attend club AGMs, dispatching his offspring, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're glowing in tone. And still, he's slow to speak out.

There have been instances on an rare moment to support the organization with confidential messages to news outlets, but nothing is heard in the open.

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

The official line from the team is that he stepped down, but reviewing Desmond's criticism, line by line, one must question why did he permit it to get this far down the line?

If the manager is culpable of all of the things that Desmond is claiming he's guilty of, then it's fair to ask why was the manager not removed?

He has accused him of spinning information in public that did not tally with reality.

He says his statements "played a part to a toxic atmosphere around the club and fuelled hostility towards individuals of the management and the directors. Some of the criticism directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and unacceptable."

What an remarkable allegation, indeed. Lawyers might be mobilising as we speak.

His Ambition Clashed with Celtic's Strategy Again

Looking back to better days, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Rodgers respected Dermot and, really, to no one other.

It was Desmond who took the criticism when his returned happened, after the previous manager.

This marked the most controversial hiring, the reappearance of the returning hero for some supporters or, as some other Celtic fans would have put it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had his back. Over time, the manager employed the persuasion, delivered the victories 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 Rodgers' ambition clashed with the club's operational approach, though.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it transpired once more, with bells on, over the last year. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow way Celtic went about their transfer business, the endless waiting for prospects to be secured, then not landed, as was too often the case as far as he was concerned.

Repeatedly he stated about the necessity for what he called "flexibility" in the market. Supporters concurred with him.

Even when the organization spent unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the £11m one signing, the costly another player and the significant further acquisition - none of whom have cut it to date, with Idah already having departed - Rodgers demanded more and more and, often, he did it in openly.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion within the team and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would usually minimize it and almost reverse what he said.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, all are united, he'd claim. It looked like Rodgers was engaging in a risky game.

A few months back there was a story in a newspaper that purportedly originated from a source associated with the organization. It claimed that Rodgers was damaging Celtic with his public outbursts and that his true aim was managing his exit strategy.

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

The fans were angered. They now viewed him as similar to a martyr who might be carried out on his shield because his board members did not back his vision to bring success.

The leak was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it accomplished. He demanded for an investigation 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 clear the manager was shedding the backing of the people in charge.

The frequent {gripes