🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour after the club released the announcement of their manager's surprising departure via a perfunctory short communication, the bombshell landed, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in apparent fury.

Through an extensive statement, major shareholder Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

The man he persuaded to join the club when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and needed putting back in a box. Plus the man he once more turned to after the previous manager departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of Desmond's takedown, the astonishing return of the former boss was practically an after-thought.

Two decades after his exit from the club, and after a large part of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous series of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his past successes at the team, Martin O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

Currently - and maybe for a while. Considering things he has expressed recently, O'Neill has been eager to get another job. He will see this one as the perfect opportunity, a present from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he experienced such glory and praise.

Would he relinquish it readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well make a call to sound out their ex-manager, but the new appointment will act as a balm 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 way Desmond wrote of the former manager.

It was a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a branding of him as deceitful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of falsehoods; disruptive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the cost of others," wrote he.

For a person who values decorum and places great store in dealings being conducted with discretion, if not complete privacy, this was another illustration of how unusual situations have grown at the club.

Desmond, the organization's dominant presence, moves in the background. The remote leader, the one with the authority to make all the important decisions he wants without having the responsibility of explaining them in any open setting.

He never attend club AGMs, dispatching his offspring, his son, in his place. He seldom, if ever, does media talks about Celtic unless they're glowing in nature. And still, he's slow to communicate.

There have been instances on an rare moment to support the club with private missives to news outlets, but no statement is made in the open.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to remain. And that's exactly what he went against when launching all-out attack on the manager on Monday.

The official line from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reviewing Desmond's criticism, line by line, one must question why did he allow it to reach such a critical point?

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

He has accused him of spinning things in public that were inconsistent with reality.

He says Rodgers' words "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the team and encouraged animosity towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. Some of the abuse aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and unacceptable."

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

His Ambition Conflicted with the Club's Model Again

Looking back to better days, they were tight, the two men. Rodgers lauded the shareholder at every turn, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Brendan respected Dermot and, really, to nobody else.

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

This marked the most controversial appointment, the return of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other supporters would have put it, the return of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, Rodgers turned on the persuasion, achieved the wins and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the fans turned into a love-in once more.

There was always - consistently - going to be a point when his ambition came in contact with Celtic's operational approach, however.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with bells on, over the last year. He publicly commented about the sluggish process Celtic conducted their player acquisitions, the endless waiting for targets to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was concerned.

Repeatedly he stated about the necessity for what he termed "agility" in the market. Supporters agreed with him.

Despite the club spent unprecedented sums of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the £9m Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have cut it to date, with one since having departed - the manager demanded increased resources and, oftentimes, he expressed this in public.

He set a controversy about a lack of cohesion inside the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent news conference he would typically minimize it and nearly reverse what he stated.

Internal issues? No, no, all are united, he'd say. It looked like Rodgers was engaging in a risky game.

A few months back there was a report in a publication that purportedly came from a source close to the club. It said that the manager was harming 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 way out, this was the implication of the story.

The fans were angered. They now viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his honor because his board members did not support his vision to bring success.

This disclosure was poisonous, naturally, and it was meant to hurt Rodgers, which it accomplished. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. If there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

By then it was clear Rodgers was shedding the support of the individuals in charge.

The regular {gripes