🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour after Celtic released the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the howitzer arrived, from the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in apparent fury.

Through an extensive statement, major shareholder Desmond savaged his old chum.

This individual he persuaded to join the club when their rivals were getting uppity in 2016 and needed putting in their place. And the figure he again relied on after the previous manager left for another club in the recent offseason.

Such was the ferocity of his takedown, the astonishing return of Martin O'Neill was almost an after-thought.

Two decades after his exit from the organization, and after much of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous series of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at the team, Martin O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Based on things he has said lately, he has been eager to secure another job. He will see this role as the perfect chance, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the environment where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Would he relinquish it easily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic might well make a call to sound out Postecoglou, but O'Neill will act as a balm for the moment.

'Full-blooded Effort at Character Assassination

O'Neill's reappearance - however strange as it is - can be set aside because the most significant 'wow!' development was the brutal way the shareholder described the former manager.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a labeling of Rodgers as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "A single person's wish for self-preservation at the cost of others," wrote Desmond.

For a person who values decorum and sets high importance in dealings being done with discretion, if not complete secrecy, here was another example of how abnormal situations have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the organization's most powerful presence, moves in the background. The remote leader, the one with the power to make all the major decisions he pleases without having the obligation of justifying them in any public forum.

He never participate in club AGMs, sending his offspring, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're glowing in tone. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

He has been known on an occasion or two to defend the club with confidential messages to media organisations, but nothing is made in public.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to be. And it's just what he contradicted when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on Monday.

The official line from the club is that he resigned, but reviewing Desmond's invective, carefully, one must question why did he permit it to reach this far down the line?

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

Desmond has accused him of distorting things in public that did not tally with reality.

He says Rodgers' words "played a part to a hostile environment around the team and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the management and the directors. A portion of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unwarranted and unacceptable."

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

His Ambition Conflicted with Celtic's Strategy Once More'

To return to happier days, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded the shareholder at every turn, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Rodgers respected Dermot and, really, to no one other.

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

This marked the most divisive hiring, the reappearance of the returning hero for some supporters or, as some other Celtic fans would have put it, the return of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had his support. Gradually, Rodgers employed the persuasion, delivered the victories and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the fans turned into a love-in again.

There was always - always - going to be a point when Rodgers' goals clashed with the club's operational approach, however.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it happened once more, with added intensity, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the sluggish process Celtic conducted their player acquisitions, the interminable waiting for prospects to be landed, then not landed, as was too often the case as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he spoke about the need for what he termed "flexibility" in the transfer window. Supporters agreed with him.

Despite the club splurged unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the expensive Arne Engels, the costly another player and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have performed well to date, with one since having departed - the manager demanded increased resources and, often, he expressed this in public.

He planted a controversy about a lack of cohesion inside the club and then walked away. Upon questioning about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would typically minimize it and nearly reverse what he said.

Internal issues? No, no, all are united, he'd claim. It appeared like he was engaging in a risky game.

A few months back there was a report in a publication that allegedly came from a source close to the organization. It said that the manager was damaging Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was managing his departure plan.

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

Supporters were enraged. They now viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure 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 meant to harm him, which it did. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a probe then we learned no more about it.

By then it was clear the manager was losing the support of the individuals in charge.

The regular {gripes