🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour after Celtic issued the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a brief short statement, the bombshell arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in obvious fury.

Through 551-words, key investor Dermot Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

The man he persuaded to join the team when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and needed putting back in a box. Plus the man he once more turned to after the previous manager departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

So intense was the severity of his takedown, the astonishing return of the former boss was practically an secondary note.

Two decades after his departure from the club, and after a large part of his latter years was given over to an continuous circuit of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his past successes at the team, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

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

Will he relinquish it readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club could possibly make a call to contact Postecoglou, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the moment.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - as surreal as it may be - can be parked because the most significant 'wow!' development was the harsh way Desmond described the former manager.

This constituted a forceful attempt at character assassination, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-interest at the expense of others," wrote he.

For a person who prizes decorum and sets high importance in dealings being done with discretion, if not complete privacy, this was another example of how unusual situations have grown at the club.

Desmond, the club's most powerful presence, operates in the background. The remote leader, the individual with the power to make all the important calls he pleases without having the obligation of justifying them in any open setting.

He does not participate in team annual meetings, sending his offspring, Ross, in his place. He rarely, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in tone. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

He has been known on an occasion or two to support the club with private messages to news outlets, but no statement is heard in the open.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to be. And that's just what he went against when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on Monday.

The official line from the club is that he stepped down, but reviewing his invective, carefully, one must question why he allow it to get such a critical point?

Assuming the manager is guilty of every one of the things that Desmond is alleging he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to ask why had been the coach not dismissed?

Desmond has charged him of spinning things in public that did not tally with the facts.

He says Rodgers' words "have contributed to a toxic atmosphere around the club and encouraged hostility towards members of the executive team and the board. Some of the abuse directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

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

'Rodgers' Ambition Conflicted with Celtic's Model Again

Looking back to better days, they were close, the two men. Rodgers lauded Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Rodgers respected him and, really, to nobody else.

It was Desmond who took the heat when Rodgers' comeback occurred, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most controversial appointment, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as other supporters would have put it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the difficulty for Leicester.

Desmond had his back. Gradually, Rodgers employed the persuasion, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an uneasy truce with the fans became a affectionate relationship again.

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

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired again, with bells on, over the last year. He publicly commented about the slow way Celtic went about their player acquisitions, the interminable waiting for targets 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 necessity for what he termed "agility" in the transfer window. The fans concurred with him.

Despite the organization spent unprecedented sums of money in a twelve-month period on the expensive one signing, the £9m another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well to date, with one since having left - Rodgers pushed for increased resources and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He planted a bomb about a internal disunity within the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his next media briefing he would usually downplay it and nearly contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It looked like Rodgers was playing a dangerous game.

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly came from a source close to the club. It claimed that the manager was damaging the team with his open criticisms and that his true aim was orchestrating his departure plan.

He desired not to be present and he was engineering his exit, this was the tone of the article.

Supporters were enraged. They now viewed him as akin 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 poisonous, naturally, and it was meant to harm Rodgers, which it accomplished. He demanded for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be dismissed. Whether there was a probe then we learned no more about it.

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

The frequent {gripes