🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes following the club issued the news of their manager's shock departure via a brief five-paragraph communication, the bombshell arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious anger.

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

The man he persuaded to join the club when Rangers were getting uppity in that period and needed putting in their place. And the figure he again relied on after Ange Postecoglou departed to another club in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of Desmond's takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of Martin O'Neill was practically an after-thought.

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an continuous series of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is back in the dugout.

Currently - and perhaps for a time. Based on things he has said lately, he has been keen to secure a new position. He will see this one as the ultimate opportunity, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a return to the place where he experienced such glory and praise.

Will he relinquish it easily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the moment.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

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

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

For somebody who prizes decorum and sets high importance in business being conducted with discretion, if not complete secrecy, this was another illustration of how unusual things have grown at the club.

The major figure, the organization's dominant presence, moves in the background. The absentee totem, the individual with the power to take all the important decisions he pleases without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He never attend club AGMs, sending his offspring, Ross, instead. He rarely, if ever, gives media talks about the team unless they're glowing in nature. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

He has been known on an rare moment to defend the organization with confidential messages to news outlets, but nothing is heard in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to remain. And it's just what he went against when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the club is that Rodgers resigned, but reading his criticism, carefully, you have to wonder why he allow it to get such a critical point?

Assuming the manager is culpable of all of the accusations that the shareholder is claiming he's responsible for, then it's fair to ask why was the manager not removed?

He has accused him of distorting information in public that did not tally with the facts.

He claims Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a hostile environment around the team and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the management and the board. Some of the criticism directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unjustified and improper."

Such an remarkable charge, indeed. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we discuss.

His Ambition Clashed with Celtic's Strategy Once More'

To return to happier times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager praised Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Brendan respected him and, truly, to nobody else.

It was Desmond who took the heat when his returned occurred, after the previous manager.

This marked the most controversial hiring, the reappearance of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have described it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had his support. Over time, Rodgers employed the charm, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the supporters became a affectionate relationship once more.

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

It happened in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with bells on, over the last year. He publicly commented about the slow way the team conducted their player acquisitions, the endless delay for prospects to be secured, then missed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he stated about the necessity for what he called "flexibility" in the transfer window. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the club splurged record amounts of funds in a calendar year on the £11m one signing, the £9m another player and the significant Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well so far, with one already having departed - Rodgers demanded more and more and, often, he did it in openly.

He planted 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 usually downplay it and almost reverse what he stated.

Internal issues? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It looked like he was engaging in a dangerous game.

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that allegedly came from a insider close to the club. It claimed that Rodgers was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his true aim was managing his exit strategy.

He desired not to be there and he was arranging his way out, that was the tone of the article.

The fans were angered. They then viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his shield because his directors wouldn't back his vision to achieve success.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was meant to hurt him, which it accomplished. He called for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be removed. If there was a probe then we learned no more about it.

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

The frequent {gripes