🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes following Celtic released the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a brief five-paragraph statement, the bombshell arrived, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious anger.

In 551-words, major shareholder Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

The man he convinced to join the club when Rangers were getting uppity in 2016 and required being back in a box. And the figure he again turned to after Ange Postecoglou left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

So intense was the ferocity of Desmond's takedown, the astonishing comeback of the former boss was practically an after-thought.

Twenty years after his departure from the club, and after much of his recent life was given over to an continuous circuit of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Considering comments he has said lately, O'Neill has been eager to secure another job. He'll see this role as the perfect chance, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a return to the environment where he experienced such glory and praise.

Will he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well make a call to contact their ex-manager, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the moment.

'Full-blooded Effort at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's reappearance - as surreal as it may be - can be set aside because the most significant 'wow!' moment was the harsh manner Desmond wrote of Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a labeling of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of untruths, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "One individual's desire for self-interest at the expense of others," wrote he.

For a person who values propriety and sets high importance in dealings being done with discretion, if not outright secrecy, here was a further illustration of how abnormal things have grown at Celtic.

Desmond, the organization's most powerful figure, operates in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the authority to take all the important calls he pleases without having the responsibility of explaining them in any public forum.

He never participate in club AGMs, sending his son, Ross, in his place. He rarely, if ever, does media talks about the team unless they're glowing in nature. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

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

This is precisely how he's wanted it to remain. And it's just what he contradicted when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on that day.

The directive from the club is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing Desmond's invective, carefully, one must question why he allow it to get this far down the line?

Assuming the manager is guilty of every one of the accusations that Desmond is alleging he's guilty of, then it's fair to inquire why had been the manager not dismissed?

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

He claims Rodgers' words "played a part to a toxic environment around the team and fuelled hostility towards members of the management and the board. Some of the abuse directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unwarranted and unacceptable."

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

'Rodgers' Aspirations Conflicted with the Club's Model Once More'

Looking back to happier times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers lauded Desmond at every turn, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Rodgers deferred to Dermot and, truly, to no one other.

It was the figure who drew the criticism when his comeback happened, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most divisive appointment, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as other supporters would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the lurch for Leicester.

Desmond had his support. Over time, Rodgers employed the charm, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the fans became a love-in once more.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a point when his ambition came in contact with the club's business model, however.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it happened again, with added intensity, over the last year. Rodgers spoke openly about the sluggish way the team went about their transfer business, the endless waiting for prospects to be landed, then missed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he stated about the need for what he termed "flexibility" in the market. The fans agreed with him.

Even when the club spent record amounts of money in a calendar year on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well to date, with one already having left - Rodgers pushed for increased resources and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

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 usually downplay it and nearly contradict what he stated.

Internal issues? Not at all, all are united, he'd claim. It appeared like Rodgers was engaging in a risky game.

A few months back there was a story in a publication that allegedly originated from a source associated with the organization. It said that Rodgers was harming Celtic with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was orchestrating his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be present and he was arranging his exit, that was the tone 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 directors did not support his vision to achieve success.

The leak was poisonous, naturally, and it was intended to harm him, which it accomplished. He called for an investigation and for the guilty person to be dismissed. If there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

By then it was plain the manager was losing the support of the individuals in charge.

The frequent {gripes