🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes after Celtic released the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a brief five-paragraph communication, the howitzer landed, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in obvious anger.

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

This individual he persuaded to come to the team when their rivals were getting uppity in 2016 and needed putting in their place. Plus the man he again relied on after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

So intense was the ferocity of his takedown, the astonishing return of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

Two decades after his exit from the club, and after much of his latter years was given over to an continuous series of appearances and the performance of all his old hits at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Considering comments he has said recently, O'Neill has been eager to get a new position. He will view this role as the perfect chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the place where he experienced such glory and adulation.

Would he give it up readily? It seems unlikely. The club might well reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but O'Neill will act as a soothing presence for the time being.

'Full-blooded Effort at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be set aside because the most significant shocking moment was the harsh manner Desmond wrote of the former manager.

It was a forceful attempt at defamation, a labeling of him as deceitful, a source of falsehoods, a disseminator of misinformation; disruptive, misleading and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-interest at the expense of others," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who prizes propriety and places great store in business being done with confidentiality, if not complete secrecy, here was another illustration of how unusual situations have become at the club.

Desmond, the organization's dominant presence, moves in the background. The absentee totem, the individual with the power to take all the major calls he pleases without having the responsibility of justifying them in any open setting.

He never attend team AGMs, dispatching his offspring, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, does interviews about the team unless they're glowing in nature. And even then, he's slow to speak out.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the organization with confidential missives to news outlets, but no statement is made in public.

This is precisely how he's wanted it to remain. And that's exactly what he contradicted when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on Monday.

The directive from the team is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading his criticism, carefully, one must question why he allow it to get such a critical point?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of every one of the accusations that the shareholder is alleging he's guilty of, then it's fair to ask why had been the coach not removed?

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

He claims his words "have contributed to a toxic environment around the club and fuelled animosity towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. Some of the abuse aimed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unjustified and unacceptable."

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

His Aspirations Clashed with the Club's Model Once More'

Looking back to better times, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers praised the shareholder at every turn, thanked him every chance. Rodgers respected him and, really, to nobody else.

It was Desmond who drew the criticism when Rodgers' comeback happened, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most controversial hiring, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have put it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, Rodgers turned on the persuasion, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an uneasy truce with the supporters turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

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

This occurred in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with added intensity, over the last year. Rodgers publicly commented about the sluggish process the team went about their player acquisitions, the interminable delay for prospects to be secured, then not landed, as was frequently the case as far as he was concerned.

Repeatedly he spoke about the need for what he termed "flexibility" in the market. Supporters concurred with him.

Even when the club splurged unprecedented sums of money in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the costly Adam Idah and the significant further acquisition - none of whom have performed well to date, with Idah since having departed - Rodgers demanded increased resources and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He set a controversy about a internal disunity inside the team and then walked away. When asked about his remarks at his next news conference he would typically downplay it and almost reverse what he said.

Internal issues? Not at all, all are united, he'd say. It appeared like he was engaging in a risky game.

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that purportedly originated from a source associated with the organization. It claimed that Rodgers was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his true aim was orchestrating his exit strategy.

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

The fans were angered. They now saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his board members did not back his plans to bring success.

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

At that point it was clear the manager was losing the support of the individuals in charge.

The regular {gripes