🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following Celtic issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a brief short communication, the howitzer arrived, from the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in obvious fury.

In an extensive statement, key investor Dermot Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

This individual he persuaded to come to the club when their rivals were getting uppity in that period and required being in their place. And the man he again turned to after the previous manager departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the ferocity of his takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

Twenty years after his departure from the club, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an continuous series of appearances and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a while. Considering things he has said lately, O'Neill has been eager to get another job. He will see this role as the ultimate opportunity, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the place where he experienced such glory and praise.

Would he give it up easily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic could possibly reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but O'Neill will act as a balm for the time being.

All-out Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's return - however strange as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest shocking moment was the harsh manner Desmond described the former manager.

It was a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of Rodgers as deceitful, a perpetrator of untruths, a disseminator of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "A single person's desire for self-interest at the expense of others," stated Desmond.

For a person who prizes decorum and sets high importance in dealings being done with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, this was a further illustration of how abnormal things have become at the club.

The major figure, the club's dominant figure, moves in the background. The remote leader, the one with the power to take all the major decisions he pleases without having the obligation of justifying them in any open setting.

He does not participate in team annual meetings, dispatching his offspring, Ross, instead. He rarely, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in nature. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to defend the club with confidential messages to news outlets, but nothing is heard in the open.

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

The official line from the club is that Rodgers resigned, but reading Desmond's criticism, line by line, one must question why did he allow it to get this far down the line?

If Rodgers is guilty of all of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's guilty of, then it's fair to ask why had been the manager not dismissed?

He has accused him of spinning things in open forums that were inconsistent with reality.

He says his words "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the club and encouraged hostility towards members of the management and the directors. A portion of the criticism directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unwarranted and unacceptable."

What an extraordinary charge, indeed. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we speak.

'Rodgers' Ambition Conflicted with Celtic's Strategy Again

To return to better times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, really, to no one other.

It was Desmond who drew the heat when Rodgers' returned happened, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most divisive hiring, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as other supporters would have put it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had his back. Over time, Rodgers employed the charm, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an uneasy truce with the supporters became a affectionate relationship again.

There was always - consistently - going to be a moment when his goals came in contact with the club's business model, however.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it happened again, with bells on, over the last year. He spoke openly about the slow process the team went about their player acquisitions, the endless delay for targets to be secured, then not landed, as was too often the case as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he stated about the necessity for what he termed "flexibility" in the transfer window. The fans concurred with him.

Despite the club splurged record amounts of funds in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the significant further acquisition - none of whom have performed well so far, with one since having departed - Rodgers pushed for increased resources and, often, he expressed this in openly.

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

Internal issues? No, no, all are united, he'd claim. It looked like Rodgers was playing a risky strategy.

A few months back there was a story in a newspaper that allegedly came from a insider associated with the club. It claimed that the manager was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was managing his departure plan.

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

Supporters were enraged. They now viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his shield because his board members did not back his plans to bring triumph.

This disclosure was damaging, naturally, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a probe then we learned nothing further about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was losing the support of the individuals above him.

The regular {gripes