🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes after Celtic released the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a perfunctory short communication, the bombshell arrived, from the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious fury.

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

This individual he convinced to join the club when Rangers were getting uppity in 2016 and needed putting back in a box. And the figure he once more relied on after Ange Postecoglou departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the ferocity of Desmond's takedown, the jaw-dropping return of Martin O'Neill was almost an after-thought.

Two decades after his exit from the organization, and after a large part of his latter years was dedicated to an continuous circuit of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his past successes at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Based on comments he has expressed lately, he has been eager to get another job. He'll see this one as the ultimate chance, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and praise.

Will he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic might well reach out to contact their ex-manager, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the moment.

All-out Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's reappearance - as surreal as it is - can be set aside because the biggest shocking development was the brutal manner Desmond wrote of the former manager.

It was a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a branding of him as deceitful, a perpetrator of untruths, a disseminator of misinformation; disruptive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-interest at the expense of others," wrote Desmond.

For a person who values propriety and places great store in business being done with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, this was a further illustration of how abnormal things have become at Celtic.

Desmond, the organization's most powerful presence, operates in the margins. The absentee totem, the individual with the power to make all the major calls he wants without having the responsibility of explaining them in any open setting.

He does not attend team annual meetings, sending his son, Ross, in his place. He rarely, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're glowing in nature. And still, he's slow to speak out.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the organization with confidential messages to media organisations, but nothing is heard in the open.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to be. And it's exactly what he contradicted when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on that day.

The directive from the club is that Rodgers resigned, but reading his invective, line by line, one must question why did he allow it to reach such a critical point?

If Rodgers is culpable of every one of the things that Desmond is claiming he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to ask why was the coach not removed?

Desmond has charged him of distorting information in open forums that did not tally with reality.

He claims Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a toxic atmosphere around the club and fuelled animosity towards members of the management and the directors. A portion of the abuse aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and unacceptable."

What an extraordinary charge, that is. Lawyers might be mobilising as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Ambition Conflicted with the Club's Strategy Again

To return to happier days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. The manager praised the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, truly, to nobody else.

It was the figure who took the heat when Rodgers' comeback happened, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most divisive hiring, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have put it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had his back. Over time, the manager employed the charm, achieved the wins and the honors, and an fragile peace with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship again.

There was always - always - going to be a point when his ambition came in contact with Celtic's operational approach, though.

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired again, with bells on, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow way Celtic conducted their player acquisitions, the endless delay for targets to be landed, then missed, as was too often the case as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he stated about the necessity for what he called "agility" in the transfer window. Supporters agreed with him.

Even when the organization spent unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the expensive one signing, the £9m Adam Idah and the significant Auston Trusty - none of whom have cut it to date, with one since having left - the manager pushed for increased resources and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He set a bomb about a internal disunity inside the club and then distanced himself. When asked about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would typically minimize it and nearly reverse what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, all are united, he'd claim. It looked like Rodgers was engaging in a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a story in a newspaper that purportedly originated from a source associated with the organization. It said that Rodgers was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his departure plan.

He didn't want to be present and he was arranging his way out, this was the implication of the article.

The fans were enraged. They now saw him as akin to a martyr who might be carried out on his shield because his directors did not back his plans to achieve success.

This disclosure was damaging, naturally, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it accomplished. He called for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be removed. Whether there was a probe then we learned nothing further about it.

By then it was plain Rodgers was losing the support of the individuals in charge.

The frequent {gripes