How Unrecoverable Collapse Resulted in a Savage Separation for Rodgers & Celtic FC

Merely a quarter of an hour after the club released the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a perfunctory short communication, the bombshell arrived, courtesy of the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in apparent anger.

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

This individual he convinced to come to the team when Rangers were gaining ground in 2016 and needed putting in their place. Plus the man he once more relied on after the previous manager departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the ferocity of his critique, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

Two decades after his departure from the organization, and after a large part of his latter years was given over to an unending circuit of appearances and the performance of all his past successes at the team, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Based on things he has expressed recently, O'Neill has been eager to secure another job. He will see this role as the perfect chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such success and adulation.

Would he relinquish it readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic could possibly reach out to contact their ex-manager, but O'Neill will serve as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

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

It was a forceful attempt at character assassination, a labeling of Rodgers as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, misleading and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the expense of others," wrote Desmond.

For a person who prizes propriety and sets high importance in business being conducted with confidentiality, if not complete secrecy, here was another example of how unusual situations have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the organization's most powerful presence, moves in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the authority to take all the major decisions he pleases without having the obligation of explaining them in any public forum.

He does not attend club AGMs, dispatching his son, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about the team unless they're hagiographic in tone. And even then, he's reluctant to communicate.

There have been instances on an rare moment to support the club with confidential messages to media organisations, but no statement is made in public.

This is precisely how he's wanted it to remain. And it's exactly what he contradicted when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on Monday.

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

Assuming the manager is guilty of every one of the accusations that the shareholder is claiming he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to inquire why was the manager not removed?

He has accused him of spinning things in open forums that were inconsistent with reality.

He claims Rodgers' words "played a part to a toxic environment around the club and fuelled animosity towards members of the executive team and the directors. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unwarranted and unacceptable."

What an remarkable charge, that is. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Clashed with the Club's Model Once More'

Looking back to happier days, they were tight, the two men. The manager praised Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to him and, truly, to nobody else.

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

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

The shareholder had his support. Gradually, the manager turned on the charm, delivered the wins and the honors, and an uneasy truce with the fans turned into a love-in once more.

It was inevitable - consistently - going to be a moment when Rodgers' goals clashed with the club's operational approach, though.

It happened in his initial tenure and it happened again, with added intensity, recently. He publicly commented about the sluggish way the team conducted their player acquisitions, the endless waiting for prospects to be secured, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he stated about the need for what he termed "flexibility" in the market. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the organization spent record amounts of money in a calendar year on the expensive one signing, the costly another player and the significant further acquisition - none of whom have cut it to date, with one already having left - Rodgers pushed for increased resources and, often, he expressed this in openly.

He planted a controversy about a internal disunity within the club and then distanced himself. When asked about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would typically minimize it and almost contradict what he stated.

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

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that purportedly originated from a insider close to the organization. It said 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 way out, that was the implication of the article.

Supporters were enraged. They then viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his honor because his directors wouldn't back his vision to bring success.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was meant to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. If there was a probe then we heard no more about it.

By then it was clear Rodgers was shedding the support of the people in charge.

The regular {gripes