🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour after the club issued the news of their manager's shock departure via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the howitzer landed, from the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious fury.

In an extensive statement, key investor Dermot Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

This individual he convinced to join the team when Rangers were getting uppity in 2016 and needed putting back in a box. And the figure he once more relied on after the previous manager left for another club in the recent offseason.

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

Two decades after his exit from the organization, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an unending circuit of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his old hits at the team, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a time. Based on things he has expressed recently, O'Neill has been eager to get another job. He will see this role as the perfect opportunity, a present from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he enjoyed such success and praise.

Would he give it up readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic could possibly reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's return - as surreal as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest shocking development was the brutal way the shareholder described Rodgers.

This constituted a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a labeling of Rodgers as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, misleading and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For somebody who values decorum and sets high importance in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not outright secrecy, here was a further illustration of how unusual situations have become at Celtic.

Desmond, the organization's dominant presence, operates in the background. The remote leader, the one with the power to make all the important calls he pleases without having the obligation of explaining them in any open setting.

He never attend club AGMs, dispatching his son, his son, instead. He rarely, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're glowing in tone. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the organization with private messages to media organisations, but no statement is heard in the open.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to be. And it's just what he went against when going all-out attack on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the club is that Rodgers resigned, but reading his invective, carefully, one must question why did he permit it to get such a critical point?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of all of the things that Desmond is alleging he's guilty of, then it's fair to inquire why had been the coach not removed?

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

He claims his statements "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the club and fuelled hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the board. Some of the abuse aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

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

'Rodgers' Aspirations Conflicted with Celtic's Model Again

Looking back to happier times, they were close, the two men. The manager praised Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Rodgers deferred to him and, truly, to nobody else.

It was Desmond who took the criticism when Rodgers' returned occurred, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most controversial hiring, the reappearance of the prodigal son for a few or, as other supporters would have put it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

Desmond had his back. Over time, the manager employed the charm, achieved the wins and the honors, and an uneasy truce with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

There was always - always - going to be a point when his ambition clashed with the club's operational approach, though.

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired again, with added intensity, recently. He spoke openly about the sluggish way Celtic conducted their player acquisitions, the endless waiting for prospects to be landed, then missed, as was too often the case as far as he was believed.

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

Despite the club splurged record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the £9m Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have performed well to date, with Idah since having departed - the manager demanded increased resources and, often, he expressed this in openly.

He planted a controversy about a lack of cohesion inside the team and then distanced himself. When asked about his remarks at his next news conference he would usually downplay it and almost contradict what he stated.

Internal issues? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It appeared like he was playing a dangerous game.

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that purportedly came from a source associated with the organization. It claimed that the manager was damaging Celtic with his public outbursts and that his true aim was managing his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be there and he was engineering his exit, that was the implication of the story.

Supporters were angered. They now viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his board members wouldn't support his plans to achieve success.

This disclosure was poisonous, naturally, and it was intended to hurt him, which it did. He called for an investigation 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 plain the manager was losing the backing of the people in charge.

The frequent {gripes