🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes after Celtic released the news of their manager's shock departure via a perfunctory short communication, the howitzer arrived, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in apparent fury.

Through 551-words, major shareholder Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

This individual he persuaded to join the club when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and required being in their place. Plus the man he again relied on after the previous manager left for another club in the recent offseason.

So intense was the ferocity of Desmond's takedown, the astonishing comeback of Martin O'Neill was almost an secondary note.

Twenty years after his departure from the club, and after much of his recent life was given over to an unending circuit of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his past successes at the team, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a while. Based on things he has said recently, O'Neill has been keen to secure a new position. He will see this role as the ultimate opportunity, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

Would he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic could possibly make a call to sound out their ex-manager, but the new appointment will act as a balm for the moment.

All-out Attempt at Character Assassination

O'Neill's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the most significant 'wow!' moment was the harsh manner Desmond described the former manager.

This constituted a full-blooded attempt at defamation, a labeling of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; disruptive, misleading and unjustifiable. "One individual's desire for self-preservation at the expense of everyone else," wrote Desmond.

For a person who values decorum and sets high importance in dealings being done with confidentiality, if not complete secrecy, here was another example of how unusual situations have grown at Celtic.

Desmond, the club's dominant presence, operates in the margins. The absentee totem, the individual with the power to take all the major decisions he wants without having the obligation of justifying them in any public forum.

He never participate in team annual meetings, dispatching his offspring, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, does media talks about the team unless they're hagiographic in tone. And still, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to support the club with private missives to media organisations, but nothing is made in the open.

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

The official line from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading his invective, line by line, you have to wonder why he allow it to get such a critical point?

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

He has accused him of spinning information in open forums that were inconsistent with reality.

He says Rodgers' statements "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the club and encouraged animosity towards individuals of the management and the board. A portion of the abuse aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unjustified and improper."

What an remarkable allegation, that is. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Ambition Clashed with the Club's Model Once More'

Looking back to better times, they were close, the two men. Rodgers lauded Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Brendan respected him and, really, to nobody else.

This was Desmond who drew the criticism when Rodgers' comeback happened, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive hiring, the return of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Gradually, Rodgers turned on the persuasion, delivered the victories and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the supporters became a love-in once more.

There was always - always - going to be a moment when his goals clashed with the club's operational approach, though.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it transpired again, with bells on, over the last year. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow way Celtic conducted their player acquisitions, the endless waiting for targets to be landed, then missed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he stated about the necessity for what he termed "agility" in the transfer window. Supporters concurred with him.

Even when the club spent unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the significant Auston Trusty - all of whom have cut it to date, with one already having departed - the manager pushed for increased resources and, often, he did it in openly.

He set a bomb about a internal disunity inside the team and then walked away. When asked about his comments at his next media briefing he would typically minimize it and almost reverse what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, all are united, he'd claim. It appeared like he was engaging in a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that purportedly came from a source close to the organization. It claimed that Rodgers was damaging Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was orchestrating his exit strategy.

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

The fans were enraged. They then saw him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his board members did not support his vision to achieve triumph.

This disclosure was damaging, of course, and it was intended 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 heard nothing further about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was shedding the backing of the people above him.

The frequent {gripes