The Way Unrecoverable Collapse Led to a Savage Separation for Brendan Rodgers & Celtic FC

Merely fifteen minutes following the club released the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a brief five-paragraph communication, the howitzer arrived, from the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in obvious anger.

In an extensive statement, major shareholder Dermot Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

The man he persuaded to come to the team when Rangers were getting uppity in that period and needed putting back in a box. And the man he again turned to after Ange Postecoglou left for another club in the recent offseason.

So intense was the ferocity of Desmond's takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was practically an after-thought.

Twenty years after his departure from the club, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an continuous series of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his old hits at the team, O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

Currently - and maybe for a while. Considering things he has expressed lately, he has been eager to get another job. He'll view this role as the perfect chance, a gift from the club's legacy, a return to the environment where he experienced such glory and praise.

Would he give it up readily? It seems unlikely. The club might well reach out to contact their ex-manager, but O'Neill will serve as a soothing presence for the moment.

All-out Effort at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's reappearance - as surreal as it may be - can be parked because the biggest shocking development was the harsh manner Desmond wrote of Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of him as untrustful, a source of untruths, a disseminator of misinformation; disruptive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's desire for self-preservation at the cost of others," wrote he.

For a person who values propriety and places great store in dealings being done with discretion, if not complete secrecy, this was another illustration of how unusual things have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the organization's dominant presence, operates in the margins. The remote leader, the individual with the power to make all the major decisions he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any open setting.

He never participate in club annual meetings, sending his son, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, gives media talks about the team unless they're glowing in nature. And even then, he's slow to speak out.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to support the club with private messages to news outlets, but nothing is heard in the open.

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

The official line from the team is that he resigned, but reviewing Desmond's invective, line by line, one must question why did he allow it to reach such a critical point?

Assuming Rodgers is guilty of all of the accusations that the shareholder is alleging he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to ask why had been the coach not removed?

He has charged him of spinning information in public that did not tally with reality.

He claims his words "played a part to a toxic atmosphere around the club and fuelled hostility towards members of the management and the directors. A portion of the abuse directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

What an remarkable allegation, that is. Lawyers might be preparing as we speak.

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

Looking back to happier days, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Rodgers respected him and, really, to nobody else.

It was Desmond who drew the criticism when his comeback occurred, after the previous manager.

This marked the most divisive hiring, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have put it, the return of the shameless one, who departed in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Gradually, Rodgers employed the charm, achieved the wins and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the supporters turned into a love-in once more.

There was always - always - going to be a moment when Rodgers' goals came in contact with the club's operational approach, though.

It happened in his initial tenure and it happened again, with added intensity, over the last year. Rodgers publicly commented about the sluggish process the team conducted their transfer business, the interminable waiting for prospects to be landed, then missed, 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 agreed with him.

Despite the organization splurged unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the expensive one signing, the £9m Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have performed well so far, with one already having left - Rodgers demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in public.

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

Internal issues? No, no, all are united, he'd claim. It looked like he was playing a dangerous game.

A few months back there was a story in a publication that purportedly originated from a source associated with the organization. It said that Rodgers was harming the team with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be there and he was arranging his way out, this was the tone of the article.

Supporters were angered. They then saw him as akin to a martyr who might be removed on his shield because his directors did not back his plans to achieve triumph.

This disclosure was poisonous, naturally, and it was meant to hurt Rodgers, which it accomplished. 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.

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

The frequent {gripes