🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour after Celtic issued the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a brief five-paragraph communication, the bombshell arrived, from the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious anger.

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

This individual he persuaded to join the club when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and required being back in a box. And the figure he once more relied on after the previous manager left for another club in the recent offseason.

Such was the ferocity of his critique, the astonishing comeback of the former boss was almost an after-thought.

Two decades after his exit from the organization, and after much of his recent life was dedicated to an unending circuit of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at the team, Martin O'Neill is back in the dugout.

Currently - and perhaps for a while. Considering things he has said recently, O'Neill has been eager to secure another job. He will see this one as the perfect opportunity, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the environment where he experienced such success and adulation.

Would he give it up readily? It seems unlikely. The club could possibly make a call to contact Postecoglou, but O'Neill will act as a soothing presence for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's return - however strange as it may be - can be set aside because the most significant 'wow!' moment was the brutal way Desmond wrote of Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of Rodgers as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of falsehoods; disruptive, misleading and unacceptable. "A single person's desire for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who values decorum and places great store in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not outright privacy, here was a further example of how unusual things have become at the club.

Desmond, the club's most powerful presence, moves in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the authority to take all the major decisions he pleases without having the responsibility of explaining them in any open setting.

He does not participate in team AGMs, sending his offspring, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, does media talks about Celtic unless they're glowing in nature. And even then, he's slow to communicate.

There have been instances on an rare moment to defend the organization with confidential messages to news outlets, but nothing is made in the open.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to remain. And it's just what he contradicted when going full thermonuclear on the manager on that day.

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

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of every one of the accusations that the shareholder is alleging he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to ask why was the coach not removed?

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

He says Rodgers' statements "played a part to a toxic atmosphere around the team and fuelled animosity towards individuals of the executive team and the board. A portion of the criticism directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

Such an extraordinary charge, that is. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Conflicted with Celtic's Strategy Again

To return to happier times, they were close, the two men. Rodgers lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Rodgers deferred to Dermot and, truly, to no one other.

This was the figure who took the heat when Rodgers' comeback happened, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most divisive appointment, the return of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other supporters would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

Desmond had his support. Over time, Rodgers turned on the charm, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an uneasy peace with the supporters became a affectionate relationship again.

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

It happened in his initial tenure and it happened again, with added intensity, over the last year. Rodgers publicly commented about the sluggish way Celtic conducted their player acquisitions, the endless waiting for prospects to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was concerned.

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

Even when the organization spent record amounts of funds in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the significant Auston Trusty - none of whom have cut it so far, with Idah since having left - Rodgers demanded increased resources and, oftentimes, he expressed this in public.

He set a bomb about a internal disunity within the club and then walked away. When asked about his comments at his next media briefing he would usually minimize it and almost contradict what he said.

Internal issues? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It appeared like Rodgers was engaging in a dangerous game.

A few months back there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly came from a source associated with the club. It claimed that the manager was damaging the team with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was orchestrating his departure plan.

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

Supporters were enraged. They then saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his directors wouldn't support his plans to bring success.

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 no more about it.

By then it was plain Rodgers was losing the support of the individuals in charge.

The regular {gripes