🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes following the club issued the announcement of their manager's surprising resignation via a brief five-paragraph statement, the bombshell landed, courtesy of the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in apparent fury.

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

This individual he persuaded to join the team when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and required being in their place. Plus the man he again turned to after Ange Postecoglou departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of his critique, the astonishing return of Martin O'Neill was almost an after-thought.

Twenty years after his departure from the club, and after much of his latter years was given over to an unending series of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his old hits at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and maybe for a while. Based on things he has expressed lately, he has been eager to secure another job. He will see this role as the perfect chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the environment where he experienced such success and praise.

Will he relinquish it readily? It seems unlikely. The club might well reach out to contact their ex-manager, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the moment.

'Full-blooded Effort at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's reappearance - as surreal as it may be - can be set aside because the most significant shocking moment was the harsh way Desmond wrote of Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at character assassination, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the expense of others," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who prizes propriety and sets high importance in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, here was a further illustration of how abnormal situations have become at Celtic.

The major figure, the organization's dominant presence, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the individual with the authority to make all the major calls he pleases without having the obligation of justifying them in any open setting.

He does not participate in club AGMs, dispatching his son, Ross, instead. He rarely, if ever, does media talks about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in tone. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

There have been instances on an rare moment to defend the club with confidential messages to news outlets, 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 going full thermonuclear on Rodgers on Monday.

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

If Rodgers is guilty of every one of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's responsible for, then it's fair to inquire why was the manager not removed?

He has charged him of spinning information in public that were inconsistent with reality.

He claims Rodgers' statements "played a part to a toxic atmosphere around the team and fuelled animosity towards individuals of the management and the board. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unwarranted and unacceptable."

What an remarkable allegation, that is. Legal representatives might be preparing as we speak.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Conflicted with the Club's Strategy Once More'

Looking back to better times, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded the shareholder at every turn, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Rodgers deferred to him and, really, to nobody else.

This was Desmond who drew the heat when Rodgers' comeback happened, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most divisive appointment, the reappearance of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have described it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, Rodgers employed the persuasion, achieved the wins and the trophies, and an uneasy peace with the supporters turned into a love-in again.

There was always - always - going to be a point when his goals came in contact with the club's operational approach, however.

It happened in his initial tenure and it happened once more, with added intensity, over the last year. Rodgers publicly commented about the slow way 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 necessity for what he called "flexibility" in the market. Supporters concurred with him.

Despite the club spent record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the expensive one signing, the costly another player and the significant Auston Trusty - none of whom have cut it to date, with Idah already having left - the manager pushed for more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in public.

He planted a bomb about a internal disunity inside the club and then distanced himself. When asked about his remarks at his next news conference he would typically minimize it and nearly reverse what he said.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It appeared like he was playing a dangerous game.

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that allegedly originated from a source associated with the organization. It said that the manager was damaging the team with his public outbursts and that his true aim was managing his departure plan.

He desired not to be present and he was arranging his exit, this was the implication of the story.

The fans were angered. They now viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his directors wouldn't support his vision to achieve success.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was meant to hurt Rodgers, which it accomplished. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. Whether there was a examination then we learned no more about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was losing the backing of the people in charge.

The regular {gripes