🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes after Celtic issued the news of their manager's shock resignation via a brief short statement, the howitzer arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in apparent fury.

In 551-words, key investor Dermot Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

The man he convinced to come to the club when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and needed putting in their place. And the man he again relied on after Ange Postecoglou departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

So intense was the severity of Desmond's critique, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was almost an after-thought.

Twenty years after his departure from the club, and after much of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous series of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a time. Considering things he has said lately, O'Neill has been keen to get another job. He'll view this role as the ultimate chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he experienced such success and praise.

Will he give it up easily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic could possibly reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Effort at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it is - can be set aside because the most significant shocking development was the harsh manner Desmond described Rodgers.

It was a forceful attempt at defamation, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of untruths, a disseminator of misinformation; disruptive, misleading and unacceptable. "A single person's desire for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For a person who values decorum and places great store in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not outright privacy, here was another example of how unusual situations have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the organization's most powerful figure, operates in the margins. The remote leader, the individual with the authority to take all the important calls he pleases without having the responsibility of explaining them in any open setting.

He never participate in club annual meetings, sending his offspring, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, does interviews about the team unless they're hagiographic in nature. And even then, he's reluctant to communicate.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the organization with private messages to news outlets, but nothing is made in public.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to remain. And that's just what he contradicted when launching all-out attack on the manager on that day.

The directive from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading his criticism, line by line, you have to wonder why did he permit it to get this far down the line?

Assuming the manager is guilty of all of the things that Desmond is claiming he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to inquire why had been the manager not removed?

He has charged him of distorting things in public that were inconsistent with the facts.

He says Rodgers' words "have contributed to a hostile environment around the team and fuelled hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. A portion of the abuse aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

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

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

To return to better days, they were close, the two men. Rodgers praised Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Rodgers respected him and, truly, to nobody else.

It was Desmond who took the criticism when Rodgers' returned occurred, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive hiring, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as other supporters would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for Leicester.

Desmond had Rodgers' back. Over time, the manager employed the persuasion, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the supporters became a affectionate relationship again.

There was always - consistently - going to be a moment when his ambition clashed with the club's business model, though.

It happened in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with bells on, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the sluggish process Celtic went about their transfer business, the endless delay for targets to be secured, then missed, as was frequently the case as far as he was concerned.

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

Despite the organization spent unprecedented sums of money in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the £9m Adam Idah and the significant further acquisition - none of whom have performed well so far, with Idah since having departed - Rodgers pushed for increased resources and, often, he did it in openly.

He planted a controversy about a internal disunity within the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent news conference he would usually downplay it and almost reverse what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, all are united, he'd say. It appeared like he was engaging in a risky game.

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that allegedly came from a insider associated with the organization. It claimed that the manager was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was orchestrating his exit strategy.

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

The fans were angered. They now saw him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his board members wouldn't back his vision to achieve success.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was meant to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a probe then we heard no more about it.

By then it was plain the manager was losing the backing of the individuals above him.

The frequent {gripes