🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour after Celtic released the news of their manager's surprising resignation via a brief five-paragraph communication, the bombshell arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with clear signs in apparent anger.

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

The man he persuaded 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 the previous manager departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of his takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was almost an after-thought.

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after much of his recent life was given over to an unending series of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his old hits at Celtic, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

Currently - and perhaps for a time. Based on things he has expressed recently, O'Neill has been eager to secure another job. He'll see this role as the ultimate chance, a gift from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the place where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

Would he relinquish it easily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club could possibly reach out to contact their ex-manager, but the new appointment will act as a soothing presence for the moment.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest shocking development was the harsh manner the shareholder wrote of the former manager.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a branding of him as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, misleading and unacceptable. "One individual's desire for self-interest at the cost of everyone else," wrote he.

For somebody who prizes decorum and sets high importance in dealings being done with discretion, if not outright secrecy, this was another example of how abnormal situations have grown at the club.

Desmond, the organization's dominant figure, moves in the background. The remote leader, the one with the power to take all the important calls he wants without having the responsibility of explaining them in any public forum.

He does not attend club annual meetings, sending his son, Ross, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives interviews about the team unless they're glowing in nature. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an rare moment to defend the club with private missives to media organisations, but nothing is heard in the open.

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

The directive from the club is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing his criticism, carefully, one must question why did he permit it to reach this far down the line?

Assuming Rodgers is guilty of all of the accusations that Desmond is alleging he's guilty of, then it's fair to ask why was the manager not dismissed?

He has accused him of spinning things in public that were inconsistent with the facts.

He claims his statements "played a part to a toxic atmosphere around the team and encouraged hostility towards members of the executive team and the board. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unjustified and unacceptable."

What an remarkable charge, indeed. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we speak.

His Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Model Again

To return to better days, they were close, the two men. The manager lauded Desmond at every turn, thanked him every chance. Brendan respected Dermot and, truly, to no one other.

It was Desmond who took the heat when Rodgers' comeback happened, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most controversial appointment, the reappearance of the returning hero for some supporters or, as some other supporters would have described it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the lurch for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Over time, the manager employed the persuasion, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship again.

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

This occurred in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with bells on, recently. He publicly commented about the sluggish process Celtic conducted their transfer business, the interminable delay for targets to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was believed.

Time and again he stated about the necessity for what he called "flexibility" in the market. The fans concurred with him.

Despite the club splurged unprecedented sums of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well so far, with Idah already having left - the manager demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in public.

He planted a bomb about a lack of cohesion within the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his comments at his next media briefing he would typically minimize it and almost contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It looked like Rodgers was playing a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a story in a newspaper that purportedly originated from a source associated with the club. It said that Rodgers was harming Celtic with his public outbursts and that his true aim was orchestrating his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be present and he was engineering his way out, that was the tone of the article.

The fans were enraged. They then saw him as akin to a martyr who might be carried out on his shield because his board members wouldn't support his plans to achieve triumph.

This disclosure was poisonous, naturally, and it was intended to harm Rodgers, which it did. He demanded for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be dismissed. If there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

By then it was plain Rodgers was shedding the support of the people above him.

The regular {gripes