🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour after the club issued the news of their manager's surprising departure via a brief short communication, the bombshell landed, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious anger.

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

The man he convinced to come to the team when Rangers were gaining ground in that period and required being in their place. Plus the figure he once more relied on after Ange Postecoglou departed to another club in the recent offseason.

Such was the ferocity of his critique, the jaw-dropping return of Martin O'Neill was practically an after-thought.

Twenty years after his departure from the club, and after a large part of his recent life was dedicated to an unending circuit of appearances and the playing of all his old hits at the team, Martin O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

Currently - and perhaps for a time. Considering comments he has expressed lately, O'Neill has been keen to get another job. He will see this one as the perfect chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he experienced such success and praise.

Would he give it up easily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic could possibly reach out to contact Postecoglou, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the time being.

All-out Effort at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the biggest 'wow!' development was the harsh manner the shareholder described Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of him as untrustful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For somebody who values propriety and sets high importance in business being conducted with discretion, if not outright secrecy, this was another example of how abnormal things have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the organization's most powerful presence, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the power to take all the important decisions he wants without having the obligation of justifying them in any open setting.

He never attend team annual meetings, dispatching his son, Ross, instead. He seldom, if ever, does interviews about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in nature. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

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

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

The official line from the club is that Rodgers resigned, but reading Desmond's invective, carefully, one must question why he permit it to get this far down the line?

Assuming Rodgers is guilty of all of the accusations that Desmond is claiming he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to inquire why had been the coach not removed?

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

He claims Rodgers' statements "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the team and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the management and the directors. A portion of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

Such an remarkable allegation, indeed. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we speak.

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

Looking back to better days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers lauded the shareholder at every turn, thanked him every chance. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, truly, to no one other.

It was the figure who drew the heat when his returned occurred, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most controversial appointment, the reappearance of the returning hero for a few or, as other Celtic fans would have put it, the return of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, the manager turned on the charm, delivered the victories and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the supporters turned into a love-in again.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a moment when Rodgers' goals clashed with Celtic's operational approach, though.

It happened in his initial tenure and it happened again, with added intensity, over the last year. He publicly commented about the sluggish way the team conducted their transfer business, the endless waiting for prospects to be landed, then missed, as was too often the case as far as he was concerned.

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

Even when the club splurged record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the expensive one signing, the £9m another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - all of whom have cut it to date, with one already having departed - the manager demanded more and more and, often, he did it in openly.

He planted a controversy about a lack of cohesion inside the team and then walked away. When asked about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would typically downplay it and nearly contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, all are united, he'd say. It appeared like Rodgers was playing a dangerous game.

A few months back there was a report in a publication that allegedly originated from a insider close to the organization. It claimed that the manager was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was managing his departure plan.

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

The fans were enraged. They then saw him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his directors wouldn't back his plans to achieve triumph.

This disclosure was damaging, naturally, and it was meant to harm him, which it did. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. Whether there was a examination then we heard nothing further about it.

By then it was clear the manager was losing the backing of the individuals in charge.

The regular {gripes