🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following the club issued the news of their manager's surprising resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the howitzer landed, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious fury.

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

The man he convinced to join the club when their rivals were getting uppity in that period and needed putting in their place. And the figure he once more relied on after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of Desmond's takedown, the jaw-dropping return of Martin O'Neill was almost an secondary note.

Two decades after his departure from the club, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an unending series of appearances and the performance of all his old hits at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is back in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Based on comments he has said lately, he has been keen to secure a new position. He'll see this one as the ultimate chance, a gift from the club's legacy, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Would he relinquish it readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic could possibly make a call to contact Postecoglou, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the time being.

All-out Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's return - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the harsh manner the shareholder wrote of Rodgers.

It was a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, misleading and unacceptable. "One individual's desire for self-preservation at the expense of others," stated Desmond.

For a person who values decorum and sets high importance in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, this was a further example of how abnormal situations have become at Celtic.

The major figure, the organization's dominant figure, operates in the background. The absentee totem, the individual with the power to make all the important calls he wants without having the obligation of justifying them in any open setting.

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

There have been instances on an rare moment to defend the organization with private missives to media organisations, but nothing is heard in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to remain. And it's just what he went against when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on that day.

The directive from the club is that he resigned, but reading his criticism, carefully, you have to wonder why he allow it to get such a critical point?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of every one of the accusations that Desmond is claiming he's guilty of, then it's fair to ask why had been the manager not removed?

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

He claims Rodgers' words "have contributed to a hostile environment around the team and encouraged animosity towards members of the management and the board. Some of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

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

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

Looking back to happier times, they were close, the two men. Rodgers lauded the shareholder at every turn, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan respected him and, truly, to no one other.

It was Desmond who took the criticism when Rodgers' comeback occurred, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most controversial appointment, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as other supporters would have described it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

Desmond had his back. Over time, the manager employed the charm, achieved the wins and the honors, and an fragile peace with the fans turned into a love-in again.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a point when his goals clashed with the club's business model, though.

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired again, with bells on, recently. He publicly commented about the slow process the team conducted their player acquisitions, the interminable waiting for prospects to be secured, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he stated about the need for what he called "flexibility" in the market. Supporters agreed with him.

Despite the club spent record amounts of money in a twelve-month period on the expensive one signing, the £9m another player and the significant further acquisition - all of whom have performed well to date, with Idah since having left - the manager demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in public.

He set a controversy about a internal disunity inside the team and then walked away. Upon questioning about his remarks at his next media briefing he would typically minimize it and almost contradict what he said.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It looked like Rodgers was playing a dangerous game.

A few months back there was a story in a publication that allegedly originated from a insider associated with the organization. It said that Rodgers was damaging Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was managing his departure plan.

He didn't want to be present and he was engineering his way out, that was the tone of the story.

Supporters were enraged. They then viewed him as similar to a martyr who might be removed on his honor because his board members did not support his plans to achieve triumph.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was intended to hurt him, which it did. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. Whether there was a examination then we learned nothing further about it.

At that point it was clear the manager was shedding the backing of the individuals in charge.

The regular {gripes