🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes following Celtic released the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a brief five-paragraph communication, the howitzer arrived, from Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in obvious fury.

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

This individual he persuaded to join the team when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and needed putting in their place. Plus the man he once more turned to after Ange Postecoglou departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

So intense was the ferocity of Desmond's takedown, the astonishing comeback of the former boss was practically an after-thought.

Two decades after his exit from the club, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an unending circuit of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at the team, O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Considering comments he has said lately, he has been eager to secure a new position. He'll see this one as the perfect chance, a gift from the club's legacy, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Will he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club could possibly make a call to contact Postecoglou, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the time being.

All-out Effort at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the brutal manner the shareholder wrote of the former manager.

This constituted a full-blooded attempt at defamation, a labeling of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of untruths, a disseminator of falsehoods; disruptive, misleading and unacceptable. "A single person's desire for self-interest at the expense of others," stated Desmond.

For a person who prizes decorum and places great store in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, this was another illustration of how unusual things have grown at the club.

Desmond, the club's most powerful presence, operates in the background. The absentee totem, the individual with the power to make all the important decisions he pleases without having the responsibility of justifying them in any open setting.

He never participate in team annual meetings, dispatching his son, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're glowing in nature. And still, he's reluctant to speak out.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the club with confidential messages to news outlets, but nothing is heard in public.

This is precisely how he's wanted it to remain. And it's exactly what he went against when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on Monday.

The directive from the team is that he stepped down, but reading Desmond's criticism, line by line, you have to wonder why did he allow it to reach such a critical point?

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

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

He says his statements "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the club and encouraged hostility towards members of the executive team and the directors. A portion of the abuse directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and unacceptable."

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

His Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Strategy Again

Looking back to happier times, they were close, the two men. Rodgers lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, truly, to no one other.

It was Desmond who drew the heat when his returned happened, after the previous manager.

This marked the most divisive hiring, the return of the returning hero for some supporters or, as some other supporters would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the lurch for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Gradually, Rodgers employed the charm, delivered the victories and the honors, and an fragile peace with the fans became a affectionate relationship once more.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a moment when his goals came in contact with Celtic's operational approach, though.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it transpired again, with bells on, recently. He spoke openly about the slow way the team went about their transfer business, the interminable delay for prospects to be secured, then missed, as was too often the situation as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he stated about the need for what he called "flexibility" in the market. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the organization splurged record amounts of money in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the costly another player and the significant Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well so far, with Idah since having left - the manager demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He set a controversy about a lack of cohesion inside the team and then walked away. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent news conference he would usually downplay it and almost contradict what he said.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It looked like Rodgers was engaging in a dangerous game.

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly originated from a insider associated with the club. It said that Rodgers was damaging Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was orchestrating his departure plan.

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 viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his directors wouldn't support his plans to bring triumph.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was intended to harm him, which it did. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a probe then we learned no more about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was shedding the backing of the individuals in charge.

The frequent {gripes