🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes after the club issued the announcement of their manager's surprising departure via a brief five-paragraph statement, the howitzer arrived, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in apparent fury.

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

The man he convinced to come to the team when Rangers were getting uppity in 2016 and needed putting back in a box. Plus the man he once more relied on after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

So intense was the severity of his critique, the jaw-dropping return of the former boss was almost an after-thought.

Twenty years after his exit from the club, and after much of his latter years was given over to an continuous circuit of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

For now - and perhaps for a while. Considering things he has said lately, O'Neill has been keen to secure a new position. He'll see this one as the ultimate chance, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the environment where he experienced such success and adulation.

Will he relinquish it readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well reach out to contact Postecoglou, but the new appointment will act as a balm for the time being.

All-out Effort at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the most significant shocking moment was the harsh manner Desmond described Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful attempt at defamation, a labeling of Rodgers as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of falsehoods; disruptive, deceptive and unacceptable. "A single person's wish for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For somebody who prizes propriety and places great store in dealings being conducted with discretion, if not complete secrecy, this was another example of how abnormal situations have become at the club.

Desmond, the club's most powerful figure, moves in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the power to take all the major calls he pleases without having the obligation of explaining them in any open setting.

He never participate in club annual meetings, sending his son, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives interviews about the team unless they're hagiographic in nature. And still, he's slow to communicate.

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

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

The official line from the club is that he resigned, but reviewing Desmond's invective, line by line, you have to wonder why he permit it to get such a critical point?

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

Desmond has charged him of distorting things in open forums that were inconsistent with the facts.

He claims his statements "have contributed to a hostile environment around the club and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. A portion of the criticism directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unjustified and improper."

What an extraordinary charge, that is. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

His Aspirations Conflicted with Celtic's Model Once More'

To return to better times, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers praised Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Rodgers deferred to Dermot and, really, to nobody else.

This was Desmond who drew the criticism when Rodgers' comeback occurred, after the previous manager.

This marked the most divisive hiring, the return of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as some other supporters would have put it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the lurch for another club.

Desmond had Rodgers' support. Over time, Rodgers turned on 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 moment when Rodgers' ambition clashed with Celtic's business model, however.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it happened again, with added intensity, recently. Rodgers publicly commented about the slow way Celtic conducted their transfer business, the endless delay for targets to be secured, then missed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was believed.

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

Even when the club splurged record amounts of funds in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - all of whom have cut it to date, with Idah since having departed - the manager demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion within the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent media briefing he would typically downplay it and almost contradict what he said.

Internal issues? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It appeared like Rodgers was engaging in a dangerous game.

A few months back there was a story in a newspaper that purportedly originated from a insider associated with the organization. It claimed that Rodgers was damaging the team with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was orchestrating his exit strategy.

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

Supporters were angered. They then viewed him as akin to a martyr who might be removed on his honor because his board members wouldn't support his vision to bring success.

The leak was poisonous, naturally, and it was intended to harm Rodgers, which it accomplished. He demanded for an investigation and for the guilty person to be removed. If there was a probe then we learned no more about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was losing the support of the people above him.

The frequent {gripes