🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes after the club released the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the howitzer arrived, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious anger.

Through 551-words, key investor Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

This individual he convinced to join the team when Rangers were getting uppity in 2016 and required being back in a box. And the figure he again relied on after Ange Postecoglou left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the ferocity of Desmond's takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of Martin O'Neill was practically an secondary note.

Twenty years after his departure from the club, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an continuous circuit of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his old hits at the team, Martin O'Neill is back in the dugout.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Based on things he has said lately, O'Neill has been keen to get another job. He'll view this role as the perfect opportunity, a gift from the club's legacy, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Would he give it up easily? It seems unlikely. Celtic might well make a call to sound out their ex-manager, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the moment.

'Full-blooded Effort at Character Assassination

O'Neill's reappearance - however strange as it is - can be set aside because the biggest shocking development was the brutal way the shareholder described Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful attempt at character assassination, a branding of him as deceitful, a source of untruths, a spreader of falsehoods; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's desire for self-interest at the cost of everyone else," wrote Desmond.

For a person who prizes decorum and sets high importance in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete secrecy, this was another example of how unusual situations have become at Celtic.

The major figure, the organization's dominant presence, operates in the background. The remote leader, the one with the power to take all the major decisions he pleases without having the responsibility of explaining them in any open setting.

He never attend team AGMs, dispatching his son, Ross, instead. He seldom, if ever, does media talks about the team unless they're glowing 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 media organisations, but no statement is heard in public.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to remain. And that's just what he contradicted when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on Monday.

The directive from the team is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing his criticism, line by line, you have to wonder why he permit it to reach this far down the line?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of every one of the things that Desmond is claiming he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to ask why was the manager not dismissed?

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

He says his statements "have contributed to a hostile environment around the team and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the board. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unjustified and unacceptable."

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

'Rodgers' Ambition Conflicted with the Club's Model Once More'

To return to happier days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. The manager praised Desmond at every turn, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, really, to no one other.

This was Desmond who took the heat when his comeback occurred, post-Postecoglou.

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

The shareholder had his back. Over time, Rodgers employed the persuasion, achieved the wins and the trophies, and an uneasy peace with the supporters became a love-in once more.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a point when his ambition came in contact with the club's business model, though.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with bells on, recently. He publicly commented about the slow process the team conducted their player acquisitions, the interminable delay for targets to be landed, then missed, as was too often the case as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he spoke about the necessity for what he termed "flexibility" in the transfer window. Supporters agreed with him.

Even when the club splurged record amounts of money in a twelve-month period on the expensive one signing, the costly Adam Idah and the significant further acquisition - all of whom have performed well so far, with one since having departed - the manager pushed for increased resources and, often, he expressed this in openly.

He set a bomb about a internal disunity within the club and then walked away. Upon questioning about his comments at his next news conference he would typically minimize it and almost reverse what he stated.

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

A few months back there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly came from a source associated with the organization. It said that Rodgers was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his true aim was orchestrating his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be there and he was arranging his exit, that was the tone of the article.

The fans were enraged. They now saw him as akin to a martyr who might be removed on his honor because his directors did not back his vision to achieve success.

The leak was damaging, of course, and it was intended to harm him, which it did. He demanded for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a examination then we learned no more about it.

By then it was plain Rodgers was losing the backing of the individuals above him.

The regular {gripes