🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes following Celtic issued the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the howitzer arrived, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in apparent fury.

In 551-words, key investor Dermot Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

This individual he persuaded to join the team when their rivals were getting uppity in 2016 and needed putting in their place. And the figure he once more relied on after Ange Postecoglou left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

So intense was the severity of his critique, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was practically an after-thought.

Twenty years after his departure from the organization, and after much of his recent life was given over to an unending circuit of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his old hits at the team, Martin O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Based on things he has expressed recently, he has been keen to get a new position. He'll see this one as the perfect chance, a present from the club's legacy, a return to the place where he experienced such success and praise.

Would he give it up easily? It seems unlikely. Celtic could possibly make a call to contact Postecoglou, but O'Neill will act as a soothing presence for the moment.

'Full-blooded Effort at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the most significant shocking development was the brutal way Desmond described Rodgers.

It was a forceful attempt at defamation, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For somebody who values propriety and sets high importance in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, here was a further illustration of how abnormal situations have grown at the club.

Desmond, the organization's dominant presence, moves in the background. The remote leader, the individual with the authority to make all the important calls he pleases without having the responsibility of explaining them in any open setting.

He does not participate in club AGMs, sending his offspring, his son, instead. He rarely, if ever, does interviews about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in nature. And still, he's slow to communicate.

There have been instances on an rare moment to defend the club with private messages to media organisations, but nothing is made in public.

This is precisely how he's wanted it to be. And that's just what he went against when going full thermonuclear on Rodgers on Monday.

The official line from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading Desmond's invective, line by line, you have to wonder why he allow it to reach such a critical point?

If the manager is culpable of all of the accusations that Desmond is alleging he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to inquire why was the coach not removed?

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

He says Rodgers' words "played a part to a toxic atmosphere around the club and fuelled hostility towards individuals of the management and the board. Some of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been completely unwarranted and unacceptable."

Such an remarkable allegation, indeed. Lawyers might be preparing as we speak.

His Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Model Once More'

To return to better times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers lauded Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan respected him and, truly, to no one other.

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

This marked the most controversial appointment, the reappearance of the prodigal son for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have put it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had his back. Gradually, the manager employed the persuasion, achieved the wins and the trophies, and an uneasy peace with the fans became a love-in again.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a moment when his ambition clashed with Celtic's operational approach, however.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with added intensity, recently. He publicly commented about the sluggish process the team conducted their transfer business, the interminable delay for prospects 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 called "agility" in the transfer window. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the organization spent record amounts of money in a twelve-month period on the expensive one signing, the costly Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have cut it to date, with one since having departed - Rodgers pushed for more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in public.

He planted a controversy about a internal disunity inside the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his next news conference he would usually downplay it and nearly contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, all are united, he'd claim. It appeared like Rodgers was playing a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that purportedly originated from a insider close to the organization. It said that Rodgers was harming the team with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his exit strategy.

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

Supporters were enraged. They then viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his directors did not back his vision to achieve success.

This disclosure was damaging, naturally, and it was meant to hurt him, which it did. He called for an investigation and for the guilty person to be dismissed. If there was a examination then we learned nothing further about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was losing the support of the individuals above him.

The regular {gripes