🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes following the club issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a brief five-paragraph communication, the bombshell landed, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in apparent anger.

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

This individual he persuaded to join the club when their rivals were getting uppity in that period and required being in their place. And the man he once more turned to after Ange Postecoglou left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the ferocity of his critique, the jaw-dropping return of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after much of his latter years was given over to an continuous circuit of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

Currently - and perhaps for a time. Based on things he has said recently, he has been eager to get another job. He'll view this one as the perfect opportunity, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the place where he experienced such success and praise.

Would he give it up easily? It seems unlikely. The club could possibly reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but the new appointment will act as a soothing presence for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the most significant 'wow!' development was the harsh manner the shareholder described Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at defamation, a labeling of Rodgers as untrustful, a source of falsehoods, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "A single person's wish for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For somebody who values decorum and places great store in business being conducted with discretion, if not complete secrecy, here was another illustration of how unusual things have grown at the club.

The major figure, the organization's dominant presence, operates in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the authority to make all the major calls he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any open setting.

He never participate in team annual meetings, sending his offspring, Ross, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives 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 occasion or two to defend the organization with private missives to media organisations, but no statement is heard in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to be. And it's exactly what he contradicted when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on that day.

The directive from the team is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing Desmond's invective, line by line, one must question why he permit it to get this far down the line?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of every one of the things that Desmond is claiming he's responsible for, then it's fair to ask why was the coach not removed?

Desmond has charged him of distorting things in open forums that did not tally with the facts.

He claims Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the club and fuelled animosity towards members of the management and the directors. A portion of the abuse directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and unacceptable."

What an extraordinary charge, indeed. Lawyers might be mobilising as we speak.

'Rodgers' Ambition Clashed with the Club's Strategy Again

Looking back to better days, they were tight, the two men. The manager lauded Desmond at every turn, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to him and, truly, to no one other.

It was Desmond who drew the heat when his comeback occurred, after the previous manager.

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

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Gradually, the manager employed the persuasion, delivered the wins and the honors, and an uneasy truce with the supporters turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

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

It happened in his initial tenure and it happened once more, with bells on, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow way Celtic conducted their transfer business, the endless delay for targets to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the case as far as he was believed.

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

Even when the club splurged unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have performed well so far, with one already having departed - the manager pushed for more and more and, often, he did it in openly.

He set a controversy about a internal disunity inside the club and then distanced himself. When asked about his remarks at his subsequent media briefing he would typically downplay it and almost contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, all are united, he'd say. It appeared like Rodgers was playing a dangerous strategy.

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that allegedly originated from a insider associated with the organization. It claimed that Rodgers was harming Celtic with his public outbursts and that his true aim was orchestrating his departure plan.

He desired not to be there and he was arranging his exit, this was the implication of the story.

Supporters were angered. They now viewed him as akin to a martyr who might be removed on his shield because his directors wouldn't support his vision to achieve triumph.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was meant to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be removed. If there was a examination then we heard nothing further about it.

By then it was plain Rodgers was shedding the backing of the individuals above him.

The regular {gripes