🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes following Celtic released the announcement of their manager's surprising resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the bombshell landed, from Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in obvious anger.

In 551-words, key investor Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

This individual he persuaded to come to the team when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and required being in their place. And the figure he once more relied on after Ange Postecoglou left for another club in the recent offseason.

So intense was the ferocity of his takedown, the astonishing return of the former boss was almost an after-thought.

Twenty years after his departure from the organization, and after much of his latter years was given over to an unending circuit of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at the team, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and maybe for a while. Considering things he has expressed recently, O'Neill has been eager to get a new position. He'll see this one as the perfect chance, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the environment where he enjoyed such success and praise.

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

All-out Effort at Character Assassination

O'Neill's reappearance - as surreal as it is - can be set aside because the biggest shocking development was the harsh way Desmond described Rodgers.

This constituted a full-blooded endeavor at character assassination, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of misinformation; disruptive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's desire for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," stated he.

For somebody who prizes decorum and sets high importance in dealings being conducted with discretion, if not outright secrecy, here was another illustration of how unusual situations have grown at the club.

The major figure, the club's most powerful presence, operates in the margins. The absentee totem, the individual with the authority to make all the important calls he pleases without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He never participate in club AGMs, sending his son, Ross, in his place. He rarely, if ever, gives interviews about the team unless they're glowing in nature. And still, he's reluctant to speak out.

He has been known on an occasion or two to defend the organization with private messages to media organisations, but nothing is made in public.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to remain. And that's exactly what he contradicted when going all-out attack on the manager on that day.

The directive from the club is that he resigned, but reading his invective, carefully, one must question why did he allow it to reach such a critical point?

If Rodgers is guilty of all of the things that the shareholder is alleging he's responsible for, then it's fair to ask why was the coach not removed?

He has charged him of distorting information in public that did not tally with reality.

He claims Rodgers' words "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the club and encouraged animosity towards members of the executive team and the directors. Some of the abuse directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

What an remarkable allegation, indeed. Lawyers might be mobilising as we speak.

'Rodgers' Ambition Conflicted with Celtic's Model Once More'

To return to better days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded the shareholder at every turn, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to him and, really, to no one other.

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

It was the most divisive appointment, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as other Celtic fans would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had his support. Gradually, Rodgers employed the persuasion, achieved the wins and the honors, and an uneasy peace with the supporters turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a moment when Rodgers' goals came in contact with Celtic's operational approach, though.

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired again, with bells on, over the last year. He publicly commented about the slow way the team conducted their transfer business, the interminable delay for targets to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was concerned.

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

Despite the club spent unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the costly another player and the significant Auston Trusty - all of whom have cut it to date, with one since having departed - Rodgers demanded increased resources and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He planted a controversy about a internal disunity within the team and then distanced himself. When asked about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would typically minimize it and almost reverse what he said.

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

A few months back there was a story in a publication that allegedly came from a insider associated with the organization. It claimed that the manager was damaging Celtic with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was orchestrating his exit strategy.

He desired not to be there and he was engineering his way out, that was the implication of the story.

Supporters were angered. They then viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his shield because his board members wouldn't back his vision to achieve success.

The leak was damaging, of course, and it was meant to harm Rodgers, which it did. He demanded for an investigation and for the guilty person to be removed. If there was a probe then we learned nothing further about it.

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

The frequent {gripes