🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour after Celtic issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the bombshell landed, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious anger.

In an extensive statement, major shareholder Dermot Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

This individual he convinced to come to the club when Rangers were getting uppity in 2016 and required being in their place. And the man he again turned to after Ange Postecoglou left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

So intense was the ferocity of Desmond's critique, the astonishing return of the former boss was practically an after-thought.

Twenty years after his departure from the organization, and after a large part of his latter years was given over to an unending series 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.

Currently - and maybe for a while. Based on comments he has expressed lately, O'Neill has been keen to get another job. He will view this role as the perfect chance, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the environment where he enjoyed such success and adulation.

Will he give it up easily? It seems unlikely. Celtic might well reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but O'Neill will serve as a balm for the time being.

All-out Attempt at Character Assassination

O'Neill's reappearance - however strange as it is - can be set aside because the most significant shocking moment was the harsh way Desmond described Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded attempt at character assassination, a branding of Rodgers as untrustful, a source of untruths, a disseminator of misinformation; divisive, misleading and unacceptable. "One individual's desire for self-preservation at the expense of everyone else," stated he.

For somebody who values decorum and places great store in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, this was another illustration of how abnormal situations have become at the club.

Desmond, the organization's most powerful presence, operates in the background. The remote leader, the individual with the authority to make all the important calls he pleases without having the obligation of explaining them in any open setting.

He never attend team annual meetings, sending his offspring, Ross, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in nature. And still, he's slow to speak out.

He has been known on an rare moment to defend the organization with confidential messages to news outlets, but nothing is made in public.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to be. And it's just what he contradicted when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on Monday.

The official line from the team is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading Desmond's criticism, carefully, one must question why he allow it to get such a critical point?

If the manager is culpable of all of the accusations that the shareholder is claiming he's guilty of, then it's fair to ask why had been the manager not removed?

He has accused him of distorting information in open forums that did not tally with reality.

He says Rodgers' statements "played a part to a toxic atmosphere around the team and encouraged animosity towards members of the management and the directors. A portion of the criticism directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

What an remarkable charge, that is. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

His Ambition Conflicted with the Club's Strategy Again

Looking back to better times, they were tight, the two men. Rodgers lauded Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Brendan respected him and, really, to nobody else.

It was the figure who took the criticism when Rodgers' comeback occurred, after the previous manager.

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

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Gradually, Rodgers turned on the charm, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an uneasy truce with the fans became a love-in once more.

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

It happened in his initial tenure and it happened again, with bells on, over the last year. He publicly commented about the slow way Celtic conducted their player acquisitions, the interminable waiting for targets to be landed, then missed, as was too often the situation as far as he was concerned.

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

Despite the club splurged unprecedented sums of money in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the costly Adam Idah and the £6m Auston Trusty - all of whom have cut it so far, with Idah since having left - Rodgers demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He planted a controversy about a lack of cohesion within the team and then walked away. When asked about his remarks at his next media briefing he would usually downplay it and almost contradict what he said.

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

A few months back there was a story in a publication that allegedly 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 exit strategy.

He desired not to be present and he was engineering his way out, that was the tone of the story.

The fans were angered. They then saw him as akin to a martyr who might be removed on his shield because his directors did not support his plans to bring triumph.

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

By then it was plain Rodgers was losing the backing of the people in charge.

The frequent {gripes