🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour after the club issued the announcement of their manager's shock resignation via a perfunctory short communication, the bombshell landed, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious anger.

Through an extensive statement, key investor Desmond savaged his old chum.

The man he convinced to come to the club when their rivals were gaining ground in that period and needed putting in their place. And the figure he once more relied on after the previous manager departed to another club in the recent offseason.

Such was the ferocity of his critique, the jaw-dropping return of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after a large part of his latter years was dedicated to an unending series of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

Currently - and perhaps for a while. Considering comments he has said recently, he has been keen to secure a new position. He'll view this one as the ultimate opportunity, a gift from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the place where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Would he relinquish it easily? It seems unlikely. Celtic could possibly make a call to contact their ex-manager, but the new appointment will act as a balm for the moment.

'Full-blooded Effort at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - as surreal as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the harsh manner the shareholder described Rodgers.

This constituted a full-blooded attempt at character assassination, a labeling of him as untrustful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, misleading and unacceptable. "A single person's wish for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," wrote he.

For somebody who values decorum and sets high importance in business being done with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, here was a further example of how unusual situations have grown at the club.

Desmond, the club's most powerful presence, operates in the background. The remote leader, the one with the power to make all the important decisions he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any open setting.

He never attend team AGMs, sending his son, his son, in his place. He seldom, if ever, does media talks about the team unless they're hagiographic in tone. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

He has been known on an occasion or two to defend the club with confidential messages 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 went against when launching all-out attack on the manager on Monday.

The official line from the team is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing his criticism, carefully, you have to wonder why did he permit it to reach this far down the line?

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

He has accused him of distorting information in open forums that did not tally with reality.

He says Rodgers' words "played a part to a hostile environment around the team and fuelled animosity towards individuals of the management and the directors. A portion of the abuse directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

What an extraordinary allegation, indeed. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we discuss.

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

Looking back to happier days, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers praised the shareholder at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Rodgers respected Dermot and, truly, to nobody else.

This was the figure who took the heat when his returned happened, after the previous manager.

This marked the most divisive hiring, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as other supporters would have put it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had his back. Gradually, the manager employed the charm, delivered the victories and the trophies, and an uneasy truce with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

There was always - consistently - going to be a moment when his goals came in contact with Celtic's business model, however.

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired again, with bells on, recently. He spoke openly about the sluggish process Celtic went about their transfer business, the interminable delay for targets to be secured, then not landed, as was too often the case as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he stated about the necessity for what he termed "agility" in the market. The fans concurred with him.

Despite the organization splurged unprecedented sums of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m Arne Engels, the costly another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have cut it so far, with one since having left - Rodgers demanded more and more and, often, he did it in public.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion inside the team and then distanced himself. When asked about his remarks at his subsequent media briefing he would typically downplay 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 dangerous strategy.

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that allegedly originated from a insider close to the club. 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 present and he was arranging his exit, this was the tone of the article.

Supporters were enraged. They now saw him as akin to a martyr who might be carried out on his honor because his directors wouldn't back his plans to bring triumph.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was meant to hurt him, which it did. He demanded for an investigation and for the guilty person to be removed. If there was a probe then we learned nothing further about it.

By then it was plain the manager was losing the support of the people above him.

The regular {gripes