🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes after the club issued the news of their manager's shock resignation via a brief short statement, the bombshell arrived, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in obvious anger.

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

The man he persuaded to join the team when their rivals were getting uppity in that period and required being in their place. Plus the man he once more relied on after the previous manager departed to another club in the recent offseason.

Such was the ferocity of his takedown, the astonishing return of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

Two decades after his departure from the organization, and after much of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous circuit of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at the team, Martin O'Neill is back in the dugout.

For now - and maybe for a while. Based on things he has said lately, O'Neill has been keen to secure another job. He will see this role as the perfect opportunity, a present from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he experienced such success and praise.

Would he give it up easily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club could possibly reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the moment.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the brutal manner the shareholder described the former manager.

This constituted a forceful attempt at defamation, a branding of him as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a spreader of misinformation; disruptive, misleading and unjustifiable. "A single person's desire for self-interest at the expense of others," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who values propriety and places great store in business being conducted with discretion, if not outright secrecy, here was another illustration of how unusual things have grown at the club.

Desmond, the organization's most powerful presence, moves in the background. The absentee totem, the one with the power to take all the major decisions he pleases without having the obligation of justifying them in any public forum.

He never participate in club annual meetings, sending his offspring, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, does media talks about Celtic unless they're glowing in tone. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

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

This is precisely how he's preferred it to be. And it's just what he contradicted when going full thermonuclear on the manager on that day.

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

If Rodgers is culpable of all of the accusations that Desmond is alleging he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to ask why was the manager not removed?

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

He says Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a toxic environment around the team and encouraged animosity towards individuals 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 allegation, indeed. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we speak.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Conflicted with the Club's Strategy Once More'

Looking back to better times, they were close, the two men. The manager lauded Desmond at every turn, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Brendan respected him and, truly, to nobody else.

It was the figure who drew the heat when his returned occurred, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most divisive appointment, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as other Celtic fans would have put it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Gradually, Rodgers employed the charm, achieved the wins and the trophies, and an uneasy peace with the supporters became a love-in once more.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a moment when his goals clashed with the club's operational approach, though.

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired once more, with bells on, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow process Celtic went about their transfer business, the endless delay for prospects to be landed, then not landed, as was too often the case as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he spoke about the need for what he termed "flexibility" in the transfer window. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the club spent unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the expensive one signing, the costly another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - all of whom have cut it to date, with one since having left - the manager pushed for more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He set a controversy about a internal disunity within the team and then walked away. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent news conference he would usually minimize it and nearly reverse what he stated.

Internal issues? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It appeared like Rodgers was engaging in a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly came from a source associated with the organization. It said that Rodgers was damaging the team with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his departure plan.

He desired not to be present and he was engineering his way out, this was the implication of the article.

Supporters were enraged. They now saw him as similar to a martyr who might be removed on his honor because his board members did not support his vision to achieve triumph.

This disclosure was poisonous, naturally, and it was meant to harm Rodgers, which it accomplished. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. Whether 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 frequent {gripes