🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour following the club issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a brief short communication, the bombshell arrived, from the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious fury.

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

This individual he convinced to come to the club when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and needed putting back in a box. And the man he once more turned to after Ange Postecoglou departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

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

Twenty years after his exit from the club, and after a large part of his latter years was given over to an continuous series of appearances and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

Currently - and maybe for a while. Based on things he has expressed recently, O'Neill has been eager to secure a new position. He'll view this one as the perfect chance, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the place where he enjoyed such success and adulation.

Would he relinquish it readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well reach out to contact Postecoglou, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Effort at Character Assassination

The new manager's return - as surreal as it may be - can be parked because the most significant shocking development was the brutal manner Desmond wrote of Rodgers.

It was a forceful attempt at character assassination, a branding of him as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "One individual's desire for self-interest at the expense of others," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who prizes propriety and sets high importance in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, here was another illustration of how abnormal things have grown at the club.

The major figure, the organization's most powerful presence, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the power to make all the important calls he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any open setting.

He does not attend club AGMs, sending his offspring, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, does interviews about the team unless they're hagiographic in nature. And still, he's slow to communicate.

He has been known on an occasion or two to support the club with private missives to media organisations, but no statement is heard in the open.

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

The directive from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reviewing his criticism, line by line, one must question why did he allow it to get this far down the line?

If Rodgers is culpable of all of the accusations that the shareholder is alleging he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to inquire why had been the coach not removed?

Desmond has charged him of spinning information in public that did not tally with reality.

He says Rodgers' words "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the club and fuelled hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. A portion of the abuse directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unjustified and unacceptable."

What an remarkable allegation, that is. Lawyers might be mobilising as we speak.

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

Looking back to happier times, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers praised Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan respected him and, really, to nobody else.

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

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

The shareholder had his support. Over time, the manager turned on the charm, achieved the wins and the trophies, and an uneasy truce with the supporters turned into a love-in once more.

There was always - always - going to be a moment when Rodgers' ambition came in contact with the club's operational approach, though.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with added intensity, over the last year. He spoke openly about the slow process the team went about their transfer business, the interminable delay for prospects to be landed, then missed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he spoke about the need for what he called "flexibility" in the transfer window. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the organization spent unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the expensive Arne Engels, the costly Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have performed well to date, with Idah since having left - the manager pushed for more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He set a bomb about a internal disunity within the club and then distanced himself. When asked about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would typically downplay it and almost contradict what he said.

Internal issues? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It looked like Rodgers was playing a risky strategy.

A few months back there was a story in a publication that purportedly originated from a insider close to the club. It said that the manager was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his true aim was managing his exit strategy.

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

Supporters were enraged. They now viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his honor because his directors did not back his vision to bring triumph.

This disclosure was damaging, of course, and it was intended to hurt him, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. If there was a examination then we learned no more about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was shedding the support of the people above him.

The regular {gripes