🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour following the club released the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a perfunctory short statement, the howitzer landed, from the major shareholder, with clear signs in apparent fury.

In an extensive statement, major shareholder Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

This individual he convinced to come to the club when their rivals were gaining ground in that period and needed putting in their place. Plus the man he once more relied on after Ange Postecoglou departed to another club in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of Desmond's takedown, the astonishing return of the former boss was practically an secondary note.

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after much of his recent life was given over to an continuous series of appearances and the performance of all his old hits at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a while. Considering comments he has expressed recently, O'Neill has been keen to secure another job. He'll view this role as the perfect chance, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the place where he enjoyed such glory and praise.

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

All-out Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - however strange as it may be - can be set aside because the most significant shocking development was the brutal manner the shareholder described the former manager.

This constituted a full-blooded attempt at defamation, a labeling of him as untrustful, a source of falsehoods, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, misleading and unjustifiable. "One individual's desire for self-interest at the expense of others," wrote he.

For a person who values decorum and places great store in dealings being done with discretion, if not complete privacy, this was a further illustration of how abnormal things have grown at Celtic.

Desmond, the organization's most powerful figure, operates in the margins. The absentee totem, the individual with the authority to make all the important calls he wants without having the obligation of justifying them in any public forum.

He does not attend team AGMs, dispatching his son, Ross, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in nature. And even then, he's reluctant to communicate.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the organization with private missives to media organisations, but nothing is heard in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to remain. And it's exactly what he contradicted when launching full thermonuclear on the manager on Monday.

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

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of every one of the accusations that Desmond is claiming he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to ask why had been the coach not removed?

He has accused him of spinning information in public that were inconsistent with reality.

He says his words "have contributed to a hostile environment around the club and fuelled hostility towards members of the management and the board. Some of the criticism directed at them, and at their families, has been completely unjustified and improper."

Such an remarkable charge, that is. Lawyers might be mobilising as we speak.

'Rodgers' Ambition Conflicted with the Club's Model Again

Looking back to better times, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers praised Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan respected Dermot and, really, to no one other.

This was the figure who took the heat when Rodgers' comeback occurred, after the previous manager.

This marked the most controversial appointment, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as other Celtic fans would have put it, the return of the shameless one, who left them in the lurch for Leicester.

Desmond had Rodgers' support. Over time, Rodgers employed the charm, delivered the victories and the trophies, and an uneasy peace with the supporters became a love-in once more.

There was always - consistently - going to be a moment when his goals came in contact with Celtic's business model, however.

It happened in his initial tenure and it happened again, with bells on, over the last year. He publicly commented about the slow process the team conducted their transfer business, the endless delay for targets to be landed, then not landed, as was too often the case as far as he was believed.

Time and again he spoke about the need for what he called "flexibility" in the transfer window. Supporters concurred with him.

Even when the organization spent unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the expensive one signing, the £9m another player and the significant Auston Trusty - all of whom have performed well so far, with Idah since having departed - the manager pushed for increased resources and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion within the team and then walked away. Upon questioning about his comments at his subsequent news conference he would usually downplay it and nearly reverse what he stated.

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

Earlier this year there was a story in a newspaper that purportedly came from a insider close to the club. It said that Rodgers was damaging Celtic with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his exit strategy.

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

The fans were enraged. They now viewed him as similar to a martyr who might be removed on his honor because his directors did not support his vision to bring triumph.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was meant to harm him, which it accomplished. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

At that point it was clear the manager was losing the backing of the individuals above him.

The frequent {gripes