🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes after the club released the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising resignation via a brief five-paragraph statement, the howitzer landed, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in obvious fury.

Through an extensive statement, major shareholder Dermot Desmond savaged his former ally.

The man he persuaded to join the team when Rangers were getting uppity in that period and needed putting back in a box. Plus the man he again turned to after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of Desmond's critique, the jaw-dropping return of Martin O'Neill was practically an after-thought.

Twenty years after his exit from the club, and after a large part 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, Martin O'Neill is back in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Based on comments he has said lately, he has been eager to get a new position. He'll view this role as the perfect opportunity, a present from the club's legacy, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

Would he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club could possibly make a call to contact their ex-manager, but the new appointment will serve as a soothing presence for the moment.

All-out Effort at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's return - however strange as it is - can be set aside because the most significant shocking development was the brutal manner Desmond wrote of Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a branding of Rodgers as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a spreader of falsehoods; disruptive, deceptive and unacceptable. "A single person's wish for self-interest at the cost of everyone else," wrote Desmond.

For a person who values propriety and places great store in business being done with confidentiality, if not complete secrecy, here was a further example of how unusual things have become at the club.

Desmond, the club's dominant presence, moves in the margins. 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 open setting.

He does not attend club annual meetings, dispatching his offspring, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, does interviews about the team unless they're hagiographic in nature. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

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

This is precisely how he's wanted it to be. And that's exactly what he contradicted when going all-out attack on the manager on that day.

The directive from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reviewing Desmond's criticism, carefully, you have to wonder why he permit it to reach this far down the line?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of every one of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to ask why was the manager not removed?

He has accused him of distorting things in open forums that did not tally with the facts.

He says his words "played a part to a hostile environment around the club and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the management and the directors. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unwarranted and improper."

Such an extraordinary allegation, that is. Lawyers might be preparing as we speak.

His Aspirations Clashed with the Club's Strategy Again

Looking back to happier times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Rodgers deferred to Dermot and, truly, to no one other.

This was the figure who took the heat when Rodgers' returned happened, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive hiring, the reappearance of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as some other supporters would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had his support. Gradually, the manager employed the charm, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an uneasy truce with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

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

It happened in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with added intensity, recently. He spoke openly about the slow way the team went about their transfer business, the interminable delay for prospects to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he spoke about the necessity for what he called "agility" in the market. Supporters agreed with him.

Despite the organization spent record amounts of money in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the costly Adam Idah and the significant further acquisition - all of whom have cut it to date, with one already having left - Rodgers pushed for more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He planted a controversy about a internal disunity inside the team and then distanced himself. When asked about his remarks at his next 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 he was playing a dangerous strategy.

A few months back there was a story in a newspaper that allegedly originated from a source associated with the organization. It claimed that the manager was damaging the team with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was orchestrating his departure plan.

He desired not to be present and he was arranging his exit, this was the tone of the story.

Supporters were enraged. They now viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his shield because his board members wouldn't support his plans to achieve triumph.

The leak was damaging, of course, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it accomplished. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. If there was a examination then we heard no more about it.

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

The frequent {gripes