🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour after the club issued the news of their manager's surprising departure via a brief short statement, the howitzer arrived, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious fury.

Through 551-words, major shareholder Dermot Desmond savaged his old chum.

The man he convinced to come to the team when their rivals were getting uppity in 2016 and needed putting in their place. And the figure he again relied on after Ange Postecoglou departed to another club in the recent offseason.

So intense was the ferocity of Desmond's takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

Two decades after his departure from the club, and after much of his recent life was given over to an unending series of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

Currently - and perhaps for a while. Based on comments he has said lately, he has been keen to get another job. He will view this one as the perfect opportunity, a gift from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the environment where he experienced such success and praise.

Would he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but O'Neill will act as a balm for the moment.

'Full-blooded Effort at Character Assassination

O'Neill's reappearance - as surreal as it may be - can be set aside because the most significant shocking moment was the brutal manner Desmond wrote of Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of him as deceitful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of falsehoods; disruptive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the cost of everyone else," stated he.

For a person who prizes propriety and places great store in dealings being done with discretion, if not outright secrecy, this was another illustration of how abnormal situations have grown at the club.

Desmond, the club's most powerful presence, moves in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the power to make all the important calls he wants without having the obligation of justifying them in any open setting.

He does not attend team AGMs, sending his offspring, his son, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're glowing in tone. And even then, he's slow 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 made in the open.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to be. And it's exactly what he contradicted when going full thermonuclear on the manager on Monday.

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

If Rodgers is culpable of all of the accusations that the shareholder is alleging he's responsible for, then it's fair to ask why was the coach not dismissed?

Desmond has accused him of spinning information in public that were inconsistent with reality.

He says his statements "played a part to a toxic environment around the club and encouraged hostility towards members of the executive team and the directors. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been completely unjustified and unacceptable."

What an remarkable charge, indeed. Legal representatives might be preparing as we speak.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Model Once More'

Looking back to happier days, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers praised Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Rodgers deferred to him and, really, to no one other.

This was the figure who took the criticism when Rodgers' returned occurred, after the previous manager.

This marked the most controversial hiring, the reappearance of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the lurch for Leicester.

Desmond had his back. Over time, the manager turned on the charm, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the fans became a affectionate relationship again.

There was always - consistently - going to be a moment when Rodgers' ambition clashed with Celtic's operational approach, though.

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with bells on, recently. Rodgers publicly commented about the sluggish process Celtic conducted their transfer business, the endless waiting for prospects to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the case as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he stated about the necessity for what he termed "flexibility" in the market. The fans agreed with him.

Even when the organization splurged record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have performed well so far, with one since having left - Rodgers demanded increased resources and, often, he did it in public.

He set a controversy about a internal disunity inside the club and then distanced himself. When asked about his remarks at his subsequent news conference he would typically downplay it and almost reverse what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It appeared like Rodgers was engaging in a dangerous strategy.

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that allegedly originated from a source close to the club. It said that Rodgers was harming Celtic with his public outbursts and that his true aim was orchestrating his departure plan.

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

The fans were angered. They then saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his shield because his directors did not support his vision to achieve triumph.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was meant to harm Rodgers, which it accomplished. 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 plain the manager was losing the backing of the people in charge.

The regular {gripes