🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour following Celtic released the news of their manager's surprising resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the howitzer arrived, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in apparent fury.

Through 551-words, major shareholder Dermot Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

The man he convinced to come to the club when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and required being in their place. And the man he once more turned to after the previous manager left for another club in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of Desmond's critique, the astonishing return of Martin O'Neill was almost an after-thought.

Twenty years after his exit from the club, and after a large part of his latter years was given over to an continuous series of appearances and the performance of all his past successes at the team, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and maybe for a time. Considering comments he has expressed lately, O'Neill has been keen to get another job. He'll see this role as the perfect chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and praise.

Will he relinquish it readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well make a call to sound out Postecoglou, but O'Neill will serve as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it is - can be parked because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the brutal manner Desmond described the former manager.

This constituted a forceful attempt at character assassination, a branding of him as deceitful, a perpetrator of untruths, a disseminator of falsehoods; disruptive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-preservation at the cost of others," stated Desmond.

For somebody who values propriety and sets high importance in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, here was another illustration of how abnormal things have become at the club.

Desmond, the organization's most powerful figure, operates in the margins. The remote leader, the individual with the power to make all the major decisions he wants without having the responsibility of explaining them in any open setting.

He does not attend team AGMs, sending his son, Ross, instead. He rarely, if ever, does interviews about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in tone. And even then, he's slow to speak out.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to defend the club with private missives to news outlets, but nothing is made in public.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to be. And that's exactly what he went against when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the team is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading his criticism, carefully, you have to wonder why did he permit it to reach such a critical point?

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

He has charged him of spinning information in public that were inconsistent with reality.

He says his statements "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the club and encouraged animosity towards members of the management and the directors. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unjustified and unacceptable."

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

'Rodgers' Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Strategy Again

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

This was Desmond who drew the heat when Rodgers' returned happened, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most controversial appointment, the reappearance of the prodigal son for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Over time, the manager turned on the persuasion, delivered the victories and the trophies, and an uneasy peace with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a point when Rodgers' ambition clashed with the club's operational approach, though.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with added intensity, recently. He spoke openly about the slow process the team went about their transfer business, the endless delay for targets to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the case as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he spoke about the need for what he called "flexibility" in the transfer window. Supporters concurred with him.

Despite the club spent unprecedented sums of money in a twelve-month period on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have cut it so far, with one already having departed - Rodgers pushed for increased resources and, oftentimes, he expressed this in public.

He planted a bomb about a internal disunity inside the team and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would usually minimize it and nearly contradict what he stated.

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

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that allegedly came from a source associated with the organization. It said that Rodgers was damaging the team with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be there and he was engineering his way out, this was the tone of the article.

Supporters were angered. They now saw him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his board members did not support his plans to bring success.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was meant to harm Rodgers, which it did. He called for an investigation and for the guilty person to be dismissed. Whether there was a examination then we heard no more about it.

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

The regular {gripes