The Way Unrecoverable Breakdown Led to a Brutal Separation for Rodgers & Celtic FC

Merely fifteen minutes following Celtic released the news of their manager's surprising departure via a brief short statement, the bombshell arrived, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in apparent fury.

Through 551-words, major shareholder Dermot Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

The man he persuaded to join the team when Rangers were gaining ground in that period and needed putting back in a box. And the man he once more relied on after Ange Postecoglou departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the ferocity of his takedown, 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 recent life was dedicated to an continuous circuit of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his past successes at the team, O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a time. Considering comments he has expressed lately, he has been eager to secure another job. He will view this one as the perfect chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

Will he relinquish it easily? It seems unlikely. The club could possibly make a call to sound out their ex-manager, but O'Neill will serve as a balm for the moment.

All-out Attempt at Character Assassination

O'Neill's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest shocking development was the harsh manner Desmond described the former manager.

It was a forceful endeavor at defamation, a labeling of him as deceitful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of falsehoods; disruptive, misleading and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-preservation at the cost of others," wrote he.

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

Desmond, the organization's most powerful presence, operates in the background. The absentee totem, the individual with the authority to take all the major calls he pleases without having the responsibility of explaining them in any public forum.

He never attend team AGMs, dispatching his son, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in nature. And even then, 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 heard in public.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to be. And it's just what he contradicted when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the club is that Rodgers resigned, but reading Desmond's criticism, line by line, one must question why did he permit it to reach such a critical point?

If the manager is culpable of every one of the accusations that the shareholder is claiming he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to inquire why was the coach not dismissed?

He has charged him of distorting things in open forums that were inconsistent with reality.

He says Rodgers' words "played a part to a hostile environment around the club and fuelled animosity towards individuals of the management and the board. Some of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unwarranted and improper."

Such an extraordinary allegation, that is. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we discuss.

His Aspirations Conflicted with Celtic's Strategy Again

Looking back to happier times, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Brendan respected Dermot and, truly, to nobody else.

This was Desmond who took the heat when his returned happened, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most controversial appointment, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as other supporters would have put it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the lurch for another club.

Desmond had Rodgers' back. Over time, the manager employed the charm, delivered the wins and the honors, and an fragile truce with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a moment when his ambition clashed with Celtic's operational approach, however.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it transpired again, with added intensity, recently. He publicly commented about the slow way the team went about their transfer business, the interminable delay for targets to be secured, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he stated about the necessity for what he called "agility" in the transfer window. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the organization splurged unprecedented sums of money in a twelve-month period on the £11m Arne Engels, the costly another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have performed well to date, with one since having left - Rodgers pushed for more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in public.

He set a bomb about a internal disunity inside the club and then walked away. Upon questioning about his comments at his next media briefing he would usually downplay it and almost contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, all are united, he'd say. It appeared like Rodgers was engaging in a dangerous strategy.

A few months back there was a report in a publication that purportedly came from a source close to the club. It claimed that Rodgers was harming the team with his open criticisms and that his true aim was managing his departure plan.

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

Supporters were angered. They then saw him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his board members wouldn't back his plans to bring success.

The leak was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to harm Rodgers, which it accomplished. He called for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be dismissed. Whether there was a probe then we heard no more about it.

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

The regular {gripes