🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes after Celtic issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a perfunctory short communication, the howitzer arrived, from the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious anger.

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

This individual he persuaded to join the club when their rivals were getting uppity in that period and required being back in a box. Plus the figure he again relied on after Ange Postecoglou left for another club in the recent offseason.

So intense was the severity of his takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of Martin O'Neill was practically an after-thought.

Two decades after his departure from the organization, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an unending circuit of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his past successes at the team, Martin O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Considering comments he has expressed lately, O'Neill has been eager to secure a new position. He will see this role as the perfect chance, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

Would he relinquish it readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic could possibly reach out to contact Postecoglou, but O'Neill will serve as a balm for the moment.

All-out Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's reappearance - as surreal as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the brutal manner the shareholder wrote of Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of falsehoods, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, misleading and unjustifiable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the cost of others," stated Desmond.

For a person who prizes propriety and places great store in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, here was another example of how abnormal situations have become at the club.

The major figure, the organization's most powerful figure, operates in the background. The remote leader, the one with the authority to make all the important decisions he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He does not participate in club annual meetings, sending his offspring, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're glowing in nature. And still, he's reluctant to speak out.

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

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

The directive from the team is that Rodgers resigned, but reading Desmond's invective, carefully, one must question why did he permit it to get such a critical point?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of all of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's responsible for, then it's fair to ask why was the manager not dismissed?

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

He says his statements "played a part to a hostile environment around the team and fuelled animosity towards individuals of the executive team and the board. A portion of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unwarranted and improper."

What an remarkable charge, that is. Lawyers might be preparing as we speak.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Strategy Again

To return to better days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Brendan deferred to him and, truly, to no one other.

This was the figure who took the criticism when his comeback happened, post-Postecoglou.

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

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Gradually, Rodgers turned on the persuasion, achieved the wins and the honors, and an uneasy truce with the fans turned into a love-in once more.

There was always - consistently - going to be a moment when Rodgers' ambition clashed with the club's business model, however.

It happened in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with added intensity, over the last year. He publicly commented about the sluggish process Celtic went about their transfer business, the endless waiting for targets to be secured, then missed, as was too often the case as far as he was believed.

Time and again he stated about the need for what he termed "flexibility" in the market. Supporters agreed with him.

Despite the organization spent record amounts of money in a calendar year on the expensive Arne Engels, the costly Adam Idah and the significant Auston Trusty - none of whom have cut it so far, with Idah already having left - Rodgers pushed for more and more and, often, he did it in public.

He set a controversy about a internal disunity within the team and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent news conference he would usually minimize it and nearly reverse what he stated.

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

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that purportedly originated from a source close to the organization. It said that the manager was damaging the team with his open criticisms 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 article.

Supporters were enraged. They now viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his directors did not back his plans to bring triumph.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to harm him, which it accomplished. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a examination then we learned nothing further about it.

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

The frequent {gripes