🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following Celtic issued the announcement of their manager's surprising resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the bombshell arrived, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious fury.

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

This individual he convinced to join the club when Rangers were gaining ground in that period and required being back in a box. Plus the man he once more relied on after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

So intense was the ferocity of his critique, the astonishing return of Martin O'Neill was almost an secondary note.

Twenty years after his departure from the club, and after much of his recent life was given over to an unending circuit of appearances and the performance of all his old hits at the team, O'Neill is back in the dugout.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Considering things he has said lately, O'Neill has been keen to secure another job. He will view this role as the ultimate opportunity, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

Would he relinquish it easily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but the new appointment will serve as a soothing presence for the moment.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

O'Neill's return - however strange as it is - can be set aside because the most significant 'wow!' moment was the harsh way Desmond described the former manager.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a labeling of him as untrustful, a source of untruths, a disseminator of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-interest at the expense of others," stated he.

For a person who values decorum and sets high importance in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not outright privacy, this was another illustration of how abnormal situations have become at Celtic.

Desmond, the club's dominant presence, moves in the background. The remote leader, the individual with the power to take all the major calls he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any open setting.

He never participate in team AGMs, dispatching his son, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about the team unless they're glowing in tone. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to defend the organization with private missives to media organisations, but no statement is made in the open.

This is precisely how he's wanted it to remain. And it's exactly what he went against when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on Monday.

The official line from the team is that Rodgers stepped down, but reviewing Desmond's invective, line by line, you have to wonder why did he permit it to get such a critical point?

If the manager is culpable of every one of the accusations that Desmond is claiming he's responsible for, then it's fair to inquire why had been the manager not removed?

Desmond has charged him of distorting information in public that did not tally with the facts.

He says Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a toxic environment around the team and fuelled animosity towards individuals of the management and the board. Some of the abuse aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

What an remarkable allegation, indeed. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Conflicted with Celtic's Model Again

To return to better times, they were tight, the two men. Rodgers lauded the shareholder at every turn, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Brendan respected him and, truly, to no one other.

It was Desmond who took the heat when his returned occurred, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most divisive appointment, the return of the returning hero for some supporters or, as some other Celtic fans would have put it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Gradually, Rodgers turned on the charm, achieved the victories and the honors, and an uneasy peace with the fans became a affectionate relationship once more.

There was always - consistently - going to be a point when his goals came in contact with the club's business model, though.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it happened again, with added intensity, recently. Rodgers publicly commented about the sluggish way Celtic went about their transfer business, the endless delay for targets to be landed, then missed, as was too often the case as far as he was believed.

Time and again he spoke about the necessity for what he termed "agility" in the market. Supporters agreed with him.

Despite the organization spent record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the expensive Arne Engels, the costly another player and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have performed well so far, with one since having departed - Rodgers demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He planted a bomb about a lack of cohesion inside the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his comments at his next news conference he would usually minimize it and almost reverse what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, all are united, he'd say. It looked like he was playing a risky strategy.

A few months back there was a story in a publication that allegedly originated from a insider close to the club. It said that Rodgers was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was managing his exit strategy.

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

Supporters were enraged. They then saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his honor because his directors wouldn't back his vision to bring success.

This disclosure was poisonous, naturally, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He demanded for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be removed. If there was a examination then we learned nothing further about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was losing the support of the individuals in charge.

The regular {gripes