🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes after Celtic released the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a perfunctory short communication, the bombshell landed, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in apparent anger.

Through 551-words, major shareholder Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

The man he convinced to come to the club when their rivals were gaining ground in that period and needed putting in their place. And the figure he once more turned to after Ange Postecoglou departed to another club in the recent offseason.

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

Twenty years after his departure from the organization, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an unending circuit of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his past successes at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Considering comments he has expressed lately, O'Neill has been eager to get another job. He'll view this role as the perfect opportunity, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Will he give it up easily? It seems unlikely. Celtic could possibly reach out to contact their ex-manager, but the new appointment will act as a soothing presence for the time being.

All-out Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's return - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the biggest shocking development was the harsh way the shareholder wrote of the former manager.

It was a forceful attempt at defamation, a branding of Rodgers as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "A single person's wish for self-preservation at the cost of others," stated he.

For a person who prizes decorum and places great store in business being conducted with discretion, if not complete secrecy, here was another illustration of how abnormal situations have grown at the club.

Desmond, the club's most powerful figure, moves in the background. The remote leader, the individual with the authority to take all the important calls he pleases without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He never attend team AGMs, dispatching his offspring, his son, in his place. He seldom, if ever, does interviews about the team unless they're hagiographic in tone. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the organization with confidential messages to news outlets, but nothing is made in public.

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

The directive from the team is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing Desmond's invective, carefully, one must question why did he allow it to reach such a critical point?

If the manager is culpable of all of the accusations that Desmond is claiming he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to inquire why was the coach not removed?

Desmond has charged him of distorting things in public that were inconsistent with reality.

He claims Rodgers' statements "played a part to a toxic atmosphere around the team and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the management and the directors. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

Such an remarkable charge, that is. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

His Ambition Conflicted with Celtic's Strategy Again

Looking back to better times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers praised the shareholder at every turn, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan respected Dermot and, truly, to no one other.

It was Desmond who drew the criticism when Rodgers' returned occurred, after the previous manager.

It was the most controversial hiring, the reappearance of the returning hero for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, Rodgers turned on the charm, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the fans became a affectionate relationship once more.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a point when Rodgers' ambition came in contact with the club's operational approach, though.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it happened once more, with added intensity, recently. He spoke openly about the slow process Celtic conducted their player acquisitions, the interminable delay for prospects to be secured, then missed, as was too often the situation as far as he was concerned.

Repeatedly he spoke about the necessity for what he called "flexibility" in the market. The fans concurred with him.

Even when the club spent 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 did it in openly.

He planted a bomb about a lack of cohesion inside the team and then walked away. Upon questioning about his remarks at his next news conference he would typically minimize it and nearly contradict what he said.

Internal issues? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It looked like Rodgers was playing a risky strategy.

A few months back there was a report in a newspaper that allegedly originated from a insider close to the organization. It claimed that the manager was damaging the team with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his exit strategy.

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

Supporters were enraged. They now viewed him as similar to a martyr who might be carried out on his honor because his directors wouldn't support his plans to achieve success.

The leak was poisonous, naturally, and it was intended to harm him, which it did. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. If there was a examination then we heard nothing further about it.

At that point it was clear the manager was shedding the support of the people in charge.

The regular {gripes