🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour after Celtic released the news of their manager's surprising departure via a perfunctory short communication, the howitzer landed, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious anger.

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

This individual he convinced to come to the club when their rivals were gaining ground in that period and required being in their place. Plus the man he once more relied on after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

So intense was the severity of Desmond's takedown, the astonishing comeback of Martin O'Neill was practically an after-thought.

Two decades after his exit from the organization, 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 while. Based on things he has expressed recently, he has been keen to get a new position. He'll view this one as the ultimate chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the place where he experienced such glory and adulation.

Would he give it up easily? It seems unlikely. Celtic could possibly make a call to contact Postecoglou, but the new appointment will act as a soothing presence for the time being.

All-out Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's return - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the biggest shocking moment was the brutal manner Desmond wrote of Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a labeling of him as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a spreader of falsehoods; disruptive, misleading and unjustifiable. "One individual's desire for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For a person who values propriety and places great store in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, this was another example of how abnormal things have become at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's most powerful presence, moves in the background. The remote leader, the one with the power to make all the major decisions he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any open setting.

He never participate in club AGMs, dispatching his offspring, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, does interviews about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in tone. And still, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an rare moment to support the club with private missives to news outlets, but no statement is made in public.

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

The official line from the club is that he resigned, but reviewing Desmond's invective, carefully, you have to wonder why he allow it to reach this far down the line?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of all of the accusations that Desmond is alleging he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to inquire why had been the manager not dismissed?

He has accused him of distorting things in public that did not tally with the facts.

He says Rodgers' words "have contributed to a toxic environment around the club and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the management and the directors. A portion of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unwarranted and unacceptable."

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

'Rodgers' Ambition Clashed with Celtic's Strategy Once More'

Looking back to better times, they were tight, the two men. The manager lauded Desmond at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, really, to no one other.

This was Desmond who drew the heat when Rodgers' returned occurred, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive appointment, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the arrival of the shameless one, who departed in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, the manager turned on the persuasion, achieved the wins and the trophies, and an uneasy truce with the supporters became a affectionate relationship once more.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a moment when his goals clashed with the club's business model, however.

It happened in his initial tenure and it happened once more, with added intensity, recently. He publicly commented about the slow process Celtic conducted their player acquisitions, the interminable delay for prospects to be secured, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Time and again he spoke about the necessity for what he termed "flexibility" in the market. Supporters concurred with him.

Even when the organization splurged unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have performed well so far, with one already having departed - Rodgers demanded more and more and, often, he did it in public.

He planted a controversy about a lack of cohesion inside the club and then walked away. When asked about his remarks at his subsequent news conference he would typically downplay it and nearly reverse what he said.

Internal issues? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It appeared like Rodgers was playing a dangerous 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 Rodgers was damaging the team with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was orchestrating his exit strategy.

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

Supporters were angered. They now viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his honor because his board members did not support his plans to bring success.

This disclosure was poisonous, naturally, and it was meant to harm him, which it did. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

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

The regular {gripes