How Unrecoverable Collapse Led to a Savage Parting for Brendan Rodgers & Celtic

Merely fifteen minutes after Celtic issued the announcement of their manager's surprising departure via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the bombshell arrived, from the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in apparent anger.

Through 551-words, key investor Dermot Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

This individual he convinced to join the team when Rangers were getting uppity in 2016 and needed putting in their place. And the figure he again relied on after the previous manager departed to Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of his takedown, the jaw-dropping return of Martin O'Neill was practically an secondary note.

Twenty years after his departure from the organization, and after much of his latter years was given over to an unending circuit of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is back in the dugout.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Considering comments he has expressed recently, O'Neill has been eager to secure a new position. He'll see this role as the perfect chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the environment where he experienced such glory and adulation.

Will he relinquish it readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic might well reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the time being.

All-out Effort at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the most significant shocking moment was the harsh way the shareholder wrote of Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a branding of Rodgers as deceitful, a source of untruths, a disseminator of misinformation; disruptive, misleading and unacceptable. "One individual's desire for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," stated he.

For somebody who values propriety and places great store in business being done with discretion, if not outright privacy, here was a further illustration of how abnormal situations have grown at the club.

Desmond, the organization's most powerful figure, moves in the background. The absentee totem, the individual with the power to take all the important decisions he wants without having the responsibility of explaining them in any public forum.

He never attend team AGMs, sending his offspring, his son, instead. He rarely, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're glowing in nature. And still, he's slow to speak out.

He has been known on an occasion or two to support the club with confidential messages to media organisations, but no statement is made in the open.

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

The directive from the team is that he stepped down, but reviewing Desmond's invective, carefully, one must question why he allow it to get this far down the line?

If Rodgers is guilty of every one of the accusations that Desmond is alleging he's responsible for, then it's fair to inquire why was the manager not removed?

Desmond has charged him of distorting information in open forums that did not tally with reality.

He claims his statements "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the team and fuelled hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unjustified and improper."

Such an extraordinary charge, indeed. Legal representatives might be preparing as we discuss.

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

Looking back to happier days, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded Desmond at every turn, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, really, to nobody else.

It was the figure who drew the heat when Rodgers' comeback occurred, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most divisive hiring, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the arrival of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for Leicester.

Desmond had his back. Over time, Rodgers turned on the charm, achieved the wins and the honors, and an uneasy truce with the supporters became a affectionate relationship again.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a moment when his goals clashed with the club's business model, though.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with bells on, recently. He spoke openly about the sluggish way the team went about their transfer business, the endless delay for targets to be landed, then not landed, as was too often the situation as far as he was concerned.

Repeatedly he stated about the need for what he called "flexibility" in the transfer window. The fans concurred with him.

Despite the organization spent unprecedented sums of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the £9m Adam Idah and the significant further acquisition - all of whom have performed well so far, with one already having left - Rodgers pushed for more and more and, oftentimes, he did it 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 usually minimize it and nearly contradict what he stated.

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

A few months back there was a story in a publication that purportedly originated from a source associated with the club. It said that Rodgers was damaging the team with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was orchestrating his departure plan.

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

Supporters were enraged. They now saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his shield because his directors did not support his plans to achieve triumph.

The leak was damaging, of course, and it was intended to hurt him, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be removed. If there was a examination then we heard no more about it.

At that point it was clear the manager was shedding the backing of the individuals in charge.

The frequent {gripes