🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour following the club issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising resignation via a brief short communication, the bombshell landed, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in apparent anger.

Through an extensive statement, key investor Desmond savaged his former ally.

The man he convinced to join the team when Rangers were getting uppity in that period and needed putting back in a box. Plus the man he again turned to after the previous manager departed to another club in the recent offseason.

So intense was the severity of Desmond's takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was almost an after-thought.

Twenty years after his exit from the club, and after much of his recent life was given over to an unending series of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his old hits at the team, Martin O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and perhaps for a while. Based on comments he has said lately, he has been keen to secure another job. He'll view this role as the perfect opportunity, a gift from the club's legacy, a return to the place where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Will he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club could possibly reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but O'Neill will serve as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

O'Neill's return - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the most significant shocking development was the brutal manner the shareholder wrote of the former manager.

It was a forceful attempt at defamation, a branding of Rodgers as untrustful, a source of falsehoods, a disseminator of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-preservation at the cost of others," wrote he.

For somebody who prizes decorum and places great store in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, here was another example of how unusual things have become at the club.

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

He never participate in team AGMs, sending his offspring, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, does media talks about the team unless they're glowing in nature. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to defend the organization with private messages to news outlets, but nothing is made in the open.

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

The official line from the club is that he stepped down, but reading Desmond's invective, line by line, one must question why did he allow it to get this far down the line?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of every one of the things that Desmond is claiming he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to inquire why had been the coach not dismissed?

He has accused him of spinning information in public that did not tally with the facts.

He claims his words "have contributed to a toxic atmosphere around the club and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. A portion of the criticism directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and unacceptable."

Such an remarkable allegation, that is. Lawyers might be preparing as we speak.

'Rodgers' Ambition Conflicted with Celtic's Strategy Again

Looking back to happier times, they were tight, the two men. Rodgers praised Desmond at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Rodgers deferred to Dermot and, truly, to no one other.

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

This marked the most divisive appointment, the reappearance of the returning hero for some supporters or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the lurch for Leicester.

The shareholder had his back. Over time, the manager employed the persuasion, delivered the wins and the honors, and an uneasy truce with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a moment when his ambition came in contact with the club's business model, however.

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired once more, with bells on, recently. He spoke openly about the slow process Celtic conducted their transfer business, the interminable waiting for prospects to be secured, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was concerned.

Repeatedly he spoke about the need for what he called "agility" in the market. The fans agreed with him.

Even when the club spent unprecedented sums of money in a twelve-month period on the £11m Arne Engels, the costly Adam Idah and the significant Auston Trusty - all of whom have performed well to date, with one already having departed - Rodgers pushed for increased resources and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He planted a controversy about a lack of cohesion within the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his comments at his subsequent news conference he would usually downplay it and nearly contradict what he stated.

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

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly originated from a source close to the organization. It said that the manager was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his true aim was orchestrating his departure plan.

He didn't want to be present and he was engineering his exit, that was the implication of the story.

Supporters were enraged. They then viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his honor because his board members wouldn't support his vision to bring triumph.

The leak was damaging, of course, and it was meant 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 heard nothing further about it.

At that point it was clear the manager was losing the support of the people in charge.

The frequent {gripes