🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes after Celtic released the announcement of their manager's shock departure via a perfunctory short communication, the bombshell arrived, from the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious fury.

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

The man he convinced to come to the club when their rivals were gaining ground in that period and required being back in a box. Plus the man he again relied on after Ange Postecoglou departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of Desmond's critique, the jaw-dropping comeback of Martin O'Neill was almost an after-thought.

Two decades after his exit from the organization, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an unending series of appearances and the performance of all his past successes at the team, Martin O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

Currently - and maybe for a while. Considering comments he has said recently, O'Neill has been keen to secure a new position. He'll view this one as the ultimate chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Would he give it up readily? It seems unlikely. The club could possibly make a call to contact Postecoglou, but O'Neill will act as a soothing presence for the time being.

All-out Effort at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's return - as surreal as it is - can be parked because the most significant 'wow!' development was the harsh manner the shareholder described Rodgers.

This constituted a full-blooded attempt at defamation, a branding of him as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; disruptive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's desire for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," wrote Desmond.

For a person who prizes decorum and sets high importance in dealings being conducted with discretion, if not complete privacy, here was a further illustration of how unusual situations have become at Celtic.

Desmond, the club's dominant figure, moves in the background. The remote leader, the one with the authority to take all the major decisions he wants without having the obligation of explaining them in any public forum.

He never participate in team AGMs, dispatching his offspring, Ross, instead. He rarely, if ever, does interviews about Celtic unless they're glowing in nature. And even then, he's slow to communicate.

There have been instances on an rare moment to defend the club with private messages to news outlets, but no statement is heard in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to remain. And it's just what he contradicted when launching all-out attack on the manager on Monday.

The directive from the team is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing his criticism, 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's fair to ask why was the manager not removed?

He has charged him of spinning information in public that did not tally with the facts.

He claims Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the club and encouraged hostility towards members of the management and the board. Some of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been completely unwarranted and unacceptable."

What an remarkable charge, that is. Lawyers might be mobilising as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Conflicted with Celtic's Strategy Once More'

To return to happier days, they were tight, the two men. The manager lauded the shareholder at every turn, thanked him every chance. Brendan respected him and, really, to no one other.

This was the figure who took the heat when his comeback happened, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most controversial hiring, the reappearance of the returning hero for some supporters or, as some other supporters would have put it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Over time, Rodgers turned on the charm, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an uneasy peace with the supporters became a affectionate relationship again.

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 happened once more, with bells on, recently. Rodgers publicly commented about the slow process Celtic went about their player acquisitions, the endless delay for prospects to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he stated about the need for what he termed "flexibility" in the market. Supporters agreed with him.

Despite the club splurged record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the costly another player and the significant further acquisition - all of whom have performed well to date, with one since having departed - the manager demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He planted a bomb about a lack of cohesion within the team and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent news conference he would typically minimize it and almost reverse what he stated.

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

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that allegedly originated from a insider close to the club. It claimed that the manager was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be present and he was engineering his exit, this was the tone of the article.

Supporters were angered. They then viewed him as similar to a martyr who might be carried out on his honor because his directors did not back his plans to bring triumph.

The leak was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He demanded for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be dismissed. If there was a examination then we heard nothing further about it.

By then it was plain the manager was losing the backing of the individuals above him.

The frequent {gripes