🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes following Celtic issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a perfunctory short statement, the bombshell arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in apparent fury.

Through 551-words, major shareholder Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

The man he convinced to join the team when Rangers were getting uppity in 2016 and required being in their place. And the man he again turned to after Ange Postecoglou departed to another club in the recent offseason.

So intense was the ferocity of his critique, the astonishing comeback of the former boss was almost an after-thought.

Two decades after his departure from the organization, and after much of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous series of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his old hits at Celtic, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Based on things he has said lately, he has been eager to secure a new position. He will see this role as the ultimate opportunity, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the place where he experienced such success and praise.

Will he relinquish it easily? It seems unlikely. Celtic could possibly make a call to sound out their ex-manager, but O'Neill will act as a soothing presence for the moment.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's reappearance - as surreal as it is - can be set aside because the biggest shocking moment was the brutal way Desmond wrote of the former manager.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at defamation, a branding of him as deceitful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of misinformation; disruptive, deceptive and unacceptable. "A single person's desire for self-interest at the cost of others," stated he.

For somebody who values decorum and places great store in dealings being conducted with confidentiality, if not outright privacy, here was a further illustration of how abnormal things have grown at Celtic.

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

He does not participate in club annual meetings, dispatching his offspring, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, does media talks about the team unless they're glowing in tone. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

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

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

The directive from the team is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading his invective, carefully, you have to wonder why did he permit it to reach such a critical point?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of all of the things that Desmond is claiming he's responsible for, then it's fair to ask why was the coach not dismissed?

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

He says his words "played a part to a toxic atmosphere around the team and encouraged animosity towards individuals of the management and the board. A portion of the abuse directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

Such an extraordinary allegation, that is. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we speak.

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

Looking back to happier days, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers lauded Desmond at every turn, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, really, to no one other.

It was the figure who took the criticism when Rodgers' returned occurred, after the previous manager.

It was the most controversial hiring, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as some other supporters would have put it, the arrival of the shameless one, who departed in the difficulty for another club.

Desmond had Rodgers' back. Gradually, Rodgers turned on the persuasion, delivered the wins and the honors, and an fragile peace with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship again.

There was always - always - going to be a point when his ambition came in contact with the club's operational approach, however.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with added intensity, over the last year. Rodgers publicly commented about the sluggish way the team conducted their transfer business, the interminable waiting for prospects to be secured, then not landed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was concerned.

Repeatedly he spoke about the need for what he termed "agility" in the market. Supporters concurred with him.

Despite the club spent record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have performed well to date, with one since having departed - the manager demanded more and more and, often, he did it in public.

He planted a controversy about a lack of cohesion inside the team and then walked away. Upon questioning about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would usually minimize it and almost reverse what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It appeared like he was playing a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a story in a newspaper that allegedly came from a source close to the club. It claimed that the manager was damaging the team with his public outbursts and that his true aim was managing his departure plan.

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

The fans were enraged. They now viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his directors did not support his plans to bring success.

This disclosure was damaging, of course, and it was intended to harm him, which it did. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. Whether there was a examination then we learned nothing further about it.

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

The frequent {gripes