🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following the club issued the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a brief short statement, the howitzer landed, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in apparent fury.

Through 551-words, key investor Desmond savaged his former ally.

This individual he convinced to join the club when Rangers were gaining ground in that period and required being back in a box. And the figure he again turned to after Ange Postecoglou left for another club in the recent offseason.

Such was the ferocity of Desmond's critique, the astonishing comeback of the former boss was practically an after-thought.

Two decades after his exit from the club, and after a large part of his latter years was dedicated to an unending circuit of appearances and the playing of all his old hits at the team, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

Currently - and maybe for a while. Based on comments he has said lately, O'Neill has been keen to get a new position. He will see this one as the ultimate chance, a present from the club's legacy, a return to the place where he experienced such success and adulation.

Would he relinquish it readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic might well reach out to contact their ex-manager, but the new appointment will act as a soothing presence for the time being.

All-out Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the biggest 'wow!' development was the harsh way Desmond wrote of the former manager.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at defamation, a labeling of Rodgers as untrustful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of falsehoods; disruptive, misleading and unjustifiable. "A single person's desire for self-interest at the cost of everyone else," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who prizes propriety and places great store in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, here was a further illustration of how unusual things have grown at Celtic.

Desmond, the organization's dominant presence, moves in the background. The absentee totem, the one with the authority to make all the major calls he pleases without having the responsibility of explaining them in any public forum.

He does not attend team AGMs, sending his son, his son, in his place. He seldom, if ever, does media talks about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in nature. And still, he's slow to speak out.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to support the club with private missives to media organisations, but no statement is made in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to be. And it's just what he contradicted when going all-out attack on the manager on that day.

The directive from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading Desmond's criticism, carefully, you have to wonder why he permit it to get such a critical point?

Assuming the manager is culpable of all of the things that Desmond is claiming he's responsible for, then it's fair to inquire why had been the coach not dismissed?

Desmond has accused him of spinning things in open forums that did not tally with reality.

He claims Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the team and encouraged animosity towards individuals of the management and the directors. Some of the abuse aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

What an remarkable allegation, that is. Lawyers might be mobilising as we discuss.

His Aspirations Conflicted with the Club's Strategy Again

Looking back to better days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers praised the shareholder at every turn, thanked him every chance. Rodgers deferred to Dermot and, really, to nobody else.

It was the figure who drew the criticism when his returned happened, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most controversial hiring, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as 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 wins and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the fans turned into a love-in once more.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a moment when Rodgers' ambition came in contact with Celtic's operational approach, however.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it transpired again, with bells on, over the last year. He spoke openly about the sluggish way Celtic went about their player acquisitions, the endless delay for targets to be secured, then missed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was believed.

Time and again he spoke about the necessity for what he termed "flexibility" in the market. Supporters concurred with him.

Despite the club splurged record amounts of funds in a calendar year on the expensive one signing, the costly another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well so far, with one already having left - the manager pushed for increased resources and, often, he expressed this in public.

He planted a controversy about a internal disunity within the team and then distanced himself. When asked about his remarks at his subsequent news conference he would typically minimize it and almost reverse what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It appeared like he was playing a risky strategy.

A few months back there was a story in a publication that allegedly came from a insider associated with the organization. It claimed that Rodgers was damaging Celtic with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was managing his departure plan.

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

Supporters were enraged. They now viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his honor because his directors did not back his plans to achieve success.

The leak was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to harm him, which it accomplished. He called for an investigation and for the guilty person to be removed. If there was a probe then we heard no more about it.

By then it was clear Rodgers was losing the backing of the people in charge.

The regular {gripes