🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour following Celtic issued the news of their manager's surprising departure via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the howitzer arrived, from Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in obvious fury.

Through 551-words, key investor Desmond savaged his former ally.

This individual he persuaded to come to the club when Rangers were gaining ground in that period and needed putting in their place. And the man he once more relied on after the previous manager departed to another club in the summer of 2023.

Such was the severity of his critique, the astonishing comeback of the former boss was practically an after-thought.

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after a large part of his latter years was given over to an unending circuit of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his old hits at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is back in the dugout.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Considering comments he has expressed lately, O'Neill has been keen to secure another job. He'll see this one as the perfect opportunity, a gift from the club's legacy, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and praise.

Would he give it up easily? It seems unlikely. The club might well make a call to contact Postecoglou, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the moment.

All-out Effort at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it is - can be parked because the biggest 'wow!' development was the harsh way the shareholder wrote of Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a branding of him as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a spreader of falsehoods; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-preservation at the expense of everyone else," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who prizes decorum and sets high importance in business being done with discretion, if not complete privacy, this was a further illustration of how abnormal things have become at Celtic.

Desmond, the organization's most powerful presence, moves in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the power to make all the major calls he wants without having the obligation of explaining them in any open setting.

He never attend team annual meetings, sending his son, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about the team unless they're hagiographic in tone. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an rare moment to defend the club with confidential missives to news outlets, but nothing is made in the open.

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

The directive from the team is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading Desmond's criticism, line by line, you have to wonder why he permit it to reach this far down the line?

If Rodgers is culpable of all of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to inquire why was the coach not removed?

Desmond has charged him of spinning things in public that did not tally with reality.

He says his statements "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the team and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. Some of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

Such an remarkable charge, that is. Legal representatives might be preparing as we speak.

His Ambition Conflicted with the Club's Model Once More'

To return to better days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers praised Desmond at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Rodgers respected Dermot and, really, to nobody else.

This was Desmond who drew the criticism when Rodgers' comeback happened, after the previous manager.

This marked the most controversial appointment, the return of the returning hero for some supporters or, as some other supporters would have put it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the lurch for Leicester.

Desmond had Rodgers' back. Over time, Rodgers employed the charm, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the fans became a affectionate relationship once more.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a point when his goals clashed with the club's operational approach, however.

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with added intensity, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the sluggish way Celtic conducted their transfer business, the endless delay for prospects to be landed, then missed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he spoke about the necessity for what he called "flexibility" in the transfer window. Supporters concurred with him.

Despite the club splurged record amounts of money in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the £9m another player and the significant further acquisition - all of whom have performed well so far, with Idah since having left - Rodgers demanded increased resources and, oftentimes, he did it in public.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion inside the team and then walked away. Upon questioning about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would typically minimize it and almost reverse what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, all are united, he'd claim. It looked like he was engaging in a risky game.

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that allegedly originated from a source close to the club. It said that Rodgers was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was orchestrating his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be there and he was arranging his way out, that was the implication of the article.

The fans were enraged. They then saw him as similar to a martyr who might be carried out on his shield because his board members did not back his plans to achieve success.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to hurt him, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a probe then we heard no more about it.

By then it was clear the manager was shedding the backing of the people in charge.

The regular {gripes