🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following the club released the announcement of their manager's shock departure via a perfunctory short communication, the howitzer arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in apparent fury.

Through 551-words, major shareholder Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

The man he persuaded to come to the team when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and required being in their place. And the man he once more turned to after the previous manager left for another club in the recent offseason.

Such was the ferocity of Desmond's takedown, the jaw-dropping return of Martin O'Neill was almost an secondary note.

Two decades after his departure from the organization, and after much of his recent life was given over to an unending circuit of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Considering comments he has said recently, O'Neill has been keen to secure a new position. He'll see this role as the ultimate chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

Would he relinquish it readily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic might well make a call to sound out their ex-manager, but O'Neill will act as a balm for the moment.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

O'Neill's return - as surreal as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest shocking development was the brutal manner the shareholder described Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a labeling of him as untrustful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of misinformation; disruptive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's desire for self-preservation at the expense of everyone else," wrote he.

For somebody who prizes decorum and places great store in business being done with discretion, if not complete privacy, here was another illustration of how unusual situations have grown at Celtic.

Desmond, the organization's dominant presence, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the authority to make all the major calls he pleases without having the obligation of justifying them in any public forum.

He never participate in club annual meetings, sending his son, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're glowing in tone. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to support the organization with private missives to news outlets, but no statement is heard in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to be. And it's just what he contradicted when going full thermonuclear on Rodgers on that day.

The directive from the team is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading his criticism, carefully, one must question why he allow it to reach such a critical point?

Assuming the manager is guilty of every one of the things that the shareholder is alleging he's responsible for, then it's fair to inquire why was the manager not dismissed?

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

He claims his statements "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the club and encouraged hostility towards members of the executive team and the directors. Some of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been completely unjustified and unacceptable."

Such an extraordinary charge, that is. Lawyers might be preparing as we speak.

'Rodgers' Ambition Clashed with the Club's Strategy Once More'

To return to happier times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager praised the shareholder at every turn, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Rodgers deferred to Dermot and, truly, to nobody else.

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

This marked the most divisive hiring, the reappearance of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other supporters would have put it, the arrival of the shameless one, who departed in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Over time, the manager employed the charm, delivered the victories and the honors, and an fragile truce with the fans became a love-in once more.

There was always - consistently - going to be a point when his ambition clashed with the club's operational approach, though.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with added intensity, over the last year. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow way the team conducted their transfer business, the interminable delay for prospects to be secured, then not landed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was believed.

Time and again he stated about the necessity for what he called "agility" in the transfer window. Supporters concurred with him.

Even when the club splurged record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the costly another player and the significant Auston Trusty - none of whom have cut it so far, with Idah since having left - Rodgers pushed for increased resources and, often, he expressed this in public.

He set a controversy about a lack of cohesion inside the club and then distanced himself. When asked about his remarks at his next media briefing he would usually downplay it and nearly contradict what he stated.

Internal issues? Not at all, all are united, he'd say. It appeared like Rodgers was playing a risky strategy.

A few months back there was a story in a newspaper that allegedly originated from a source close to the club. It claimed that the manager was damaging the team with his open criticisms and that his true aim was orchestrating his departure plan.

He didn't want to be present and he was engineering his way out, this was the implication of the article.

Supporters were enraged. They then saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his honor because his board members did not back his plans to achieve triumph.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was meant to harm him, which it did. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a examination then we heard nothing further about it.

By then it was clear Rodgers was losing the support of the people in charge.

The frequent {gripes