🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes after the club released the announcement of their manager's shock resignation via a brief short statement, the howitzer landed, courtesy of the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in apparent fury.

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

This individual he convinced to come to the club when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and needed putting back in a box. Plus the figure he again turned to after Ange Postecoglou departed to another club in the recent offseason.

Such was the ferocity of his takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was practically an secondary note.

Two decades after his departure from the organization, and after much of his latter years was given over to an unending series of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at the team, Martin O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Based on things he has said lately, he has been eager to secure a new position. He'll view this role as the perfect chance, a present from the club's legacy, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and praise.

Would he relinquish it readily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic could possibly reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the time being.

'Full-blooded Effort at Character Assassination

O'Neill's return - as surreal as it may be - can be set aside because the most significant 'wow!' development was the brutal way Desmond described the former manager.

This constituted a full-blooded attempt at character assassination, a labeling of him as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a disseminator of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's desire for self-interest at the cost of everyone else," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who prizes propriety and sets high importance in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, this was another example of how abnormal things have grown at the club.

The major figure, the club's most powerful presence, moves in the background. The remote leader, the individual with the power to take all the important decisions he pleases without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He never attend team AGMs, sending his offspring, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, does media talks about the team unless they're hagiographic in nature. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

He has been known on an rare moment to defend the club with private messages to media organisations, but nothing is heard in the open.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to remain. And it's exactly what he contradicted when going full thermonuclear on the manager on that day.

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

If the manager is culpable of every one of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to ask why was the manager not removed?

He has accused him of spinning information in open forums that were inconsistent with the facts.

He claims Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a hostile environment around the team and encouraged animosity towards individuals of the management and the board. Some of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been completely unjustified and improper."

What an extraordinary allegation, indeed. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we discuss.

His Aspirations Clashed with the Club's Model Again

Looking back to happier times, they were tight, the two men. Rodgers lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, really, to no one other.

This was the figure who took the criticism when Rodgers' comeback happened, after the previous manager.

This marked the most controversial hiring, the reappearance of the returning hero for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Gradually, the manager turned on the persuasion, delivered the victories and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

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

This occurred in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with bells on, recently. He publicly commented about the sluggish process Celtic went about their player acquisitions, the endless waiting for prospects to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the case as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly 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 money in a twelve-month period on the £11m Arne Engels, the costly another player and the significant Auston Trusty - all of whom have performed well so far, with Idah since having departed - Rodgers demanded increased resources and, oftentimes, he expressed this in public.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion inside the team and then distanced himself. When asked about his comments at his next news conference he would typically downplay it and almost reverse what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, all are united, he'd claim. It appeared like he was playing a risky game.

A few months back there was a story in a newspaper that allegedly came from a source associated with the organization. It said that the manager was harming the team with his open criticisms and that his true aim was managing his departure plan.

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

The fans were enraged. They then saw him as similar to a martyr who might be carried out on his shield because his board members wouldn't back his plans to achieve triumph.

This disclosure was damaging, of course, and it was meant to hurt him, which it accomplished. He demanded for an investigation and for the guilty person to be dismissed. Whether there was a probe then we learned nothing further about it.

By then it was clear the manager was shedding the support of the people above him.

The frequent {gripes