🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour following Celtic released the news of their manager's shock resignation via a brief short statement, the howitzer landed, courtesy of the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in apparent anger.

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

The man he persuaded to join the club when their rivals were getting uppity in 2016 and required being in their place. And the man he again relied on after Ange Postecoglou departed to another club in the recent offseason.

So intense was the ferocity of his critique, the jaw-dropping return of Martin O'Neill was almost an secondary note.

Twenty years after his exit from the club, and after much of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous circuit of appearances and the performance of all his old hits at Celtic, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

Currently - and perhaps for a time. Based on comments he has expressed recently, he has been keen to secure a new position. He will see this role as the perfect opportunity, a present from the club's legacy, a return to the environment where he experienced such glory and praise.

Would he give it up easily? It seems unlikely. The club might well make a call to contact their ex-manager, but O'Neill will act as a balm for the moment.

All-out Attempt at Character Assassination

O'Neill's reappearance - as surreal as it is - can be parked because the most significant shocking development was the brutal way the shareholder wrote of the former manager.

It was a forceful endeavor at defamation, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of untruths, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-preservation at the expense of others," wrote he.

For somebody who prizes decorum and places great store in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete secrecy, this was another illustration of how abnormal situations have become at the club.

Desmond, the organization's dominant figure, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the authority to make all the important decisions he wants without having the obligation of justifying them in any open setting.

He does not participate in club annual meetings, sending his offspring, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, does interviews about the team unless they're glowing in nature. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to defend the organization with confidential messages to news outlets, but nothing is heard in the open.

This is precisely how he's wanted it to be. And it's just what he contradicted when going full thermonuclear on Rodgers on Monday.

The official line from the club is that he resigned, but reviewing Desmond's criticism, line by line, you have to wonder why did he permit it to reach this far down the line?

If the manager is guilty of all of the things that Desmond is claiming he's guilty of, then it's fair to ask why had been the coach not dismissed?

Desmond has accused him of distorting information in public that were inconsistent with reality.

He claims his statements "played a part to a hostile environment around the club and fuelled animosity towards individuals of the management and the directors. Some of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been completely unwarranted and unacceptable."

What an remarkable allegation, that is. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

His Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Model Again

To return to happier days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers praised the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Brendan respected him and, truly, to no one other.

This was Desmond who took the heat when his comeback occurred, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive hiring, the reappearance of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have described it, the return of the shameless one, who departed in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Over time, the manager employed the persuasion, delivered the victories and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the supporters became a love-in once more.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a moment when Rodgers' ambition came in contact with Celtic's operational approach, however.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it transpired again, with added intensity, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the sluggish process the team went about their transfer business, the endless waiting for prospects to be secured, then missed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Time and again he stated about the necessity for what he called "flexibility" in the transfer window. The fans concurred with him.

Even when the organization spent unprecedented sums of money in a calendar year on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the £6m Auston Trusty - all of whom have performed well so far, with Idah since having departed - the manager demanded increased resources and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He set a bomb about a internal disunity within the team and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his comments at his next news conference he would typically minimize it and nearly contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, all are united, he'd say. It looked like Rodgers was playing a dangerous strategy.

A few months back there was a story in a newspaper that purportedly came from a insider associated with the club. It claimed that the manager was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his exit strategy.

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

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

This disclosure was damaging, naturally, and it was intended to hurt him, which it accomplished. 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.

By then it was plain the manager was shedding the support of the individuals above him.

The frequent {gripes