🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes following the club released the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a perfunctory short statement, the howitzer landed, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in apparent fury.

Through 551-words, major shareholder Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

This individual he persuaded to join the team when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and required being back in a box. Plus the man he once more relied on after the previous manager left for another club in the recent offseason.

So intense was the severity of his critique, the jaw-dropping comeback of Martin O'Neill was practically 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 the team, Martin O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

Currently - and perhaps for a time. Considering comments he has expressed lately, O'Neill has been keen to get another job. He'll view this one as the perfect chance, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and praise.

Would he give it up easily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but O'Neill will act as a balm for the moment.

'Full-blooded Effort at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's return - as surreal as it may be - can be set aside because the most significant 'wow!' moment was the harsh way Desmond described Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at defamation, a labeling of him as untrustful, a source of untruths, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-preservation at the expense of others," wrote Desmond.

For a person who values propriety and sets high importance in business being done with discretion, if not complete privacy, here was a further example of how abnormal things have become at Celtic.

Desmond, the organization's dominant presence, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the individual with the power to take all the major decisions he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He does not attend club AGMs, dispatching his son, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're glowing in tone. And even then, he's reluctant to communicate.

He has been known on an occasion or two to defend the club with private missives to news outlets, but nothing is heard in the open.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to be. And that's just what he went against when going all-out attack on Rodgers on Monday.

The official line from the club is that Rodgers resigned, but reading Desmond's criticism, line by line, you have to wonder why did he allow it to reach this far down the line?

If Rodgers is guilty of every one of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's guilty of, then it's fair to ask why was the coach not dismissed?

Desmond has accused him of spinning things in public that were inconsistent with the facts.

He claims his statements "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the club and encouraged hostility towards members of the management and the directors. Some of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been completely unjustified and improper."

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

His Aspirations Conflicted with Celtic's Strategy Once More'

To return to better days, they were tight, the two men. Rodgers lauded Desmond at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Rodgers respected Dermot and, truly, to no one other.

This was Desmond who took the heat when Rodgers' returned occurred, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most divisive appointment, the reappearance of the prodigal son for a few or, as other Celtic fans would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, the manager employed the persuasion, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the supporters turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

There was always - consistently - going to be a moment when Rodgers' goals clashed with Celtic's business model, however.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it transpired again, with added intensity, recently. He publicly commented about the sluggish process Celtic went about their player acquisitions, the interminable waiting for targets to be landed, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he spoke about the necessity for what he termed "agility" in the transfer window. Supporters agreed with him.

Despite the club splurged record amounts of money in a calendar year on the £11m one signing, the £9m another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have cut it so far, with one already having left - the manager demanded increased resources and, oftentimes, he expressed this in public.

He set a bomb about a internal disunity inside the club and then walked away. Upon questioning about his comments at his subsequent news conference he would typically downplay it and nearly contradict what he said.

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

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that allegedly came from a source associated with the organization. It claimed that the manager was damaging Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was orchestrating his exit strategy.

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

Supporters were angered. They now saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his board members did not back his vision to achieve success.

This disclosure was damaging, of course, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He demanded for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was shedding the support of the people in charge.

The frequent {gripes