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

Just a quarter of an hour after Celtic issued the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the howitzer arrived, from the major shareholder, with whiskers twitching in obvious anger.

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

This individual he persuaded to join the club when their rivals were getting uppity in that period and needed putting in their place. And the man he once more turned to after the previous manager departed to another club in the summer of 2023.

So intense was the severity of his takedown, the jaw-dropping return of the former boss was almost an after-thought.

Two decades after his departure from the organization, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an unending circuit of appearances and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and perhaps for a while. Based on things he has said lately, he has been eager to get a new position. He'll see this role as the perfect opportunity, a present from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the environment where he experienced such success and adulation.

Would he give it up readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic might well reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but the new appointment will act as a soothing presence for the time being.

'Full-blooded Effort at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - as surreal as it is - can be parked because the most significant 'wow!' development was the harsh manner the shareholder wrote of Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded attempt at character assassination, a branding of him as deceitful, a perpetrator of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; disruptive, misleading and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the cost of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For a person who prizes propriety and places great store in business being done with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, here was a further illustration of how unusual things have grown at Celtic.

Desmond, the club's dominant presence, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the individual with the authority to make all the important decisions he pleases without having the responsibility of justifying them in any public forum.

He does not attend team AGMs, sending his son, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in nature. And even then, he's slow to speak out.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the organization with private missives to news outlets, but no statement is made in public.

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

The directive from the team is that Rodgers stepped down, but reviewing Desmond's criticism, carefully, one must question why did he permit it to get such a critical point?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of every one of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's responsible for, then it's fair to inquire why was the manager not dismissed?

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

He says his statements "have contributed to a hostile environment around the team and fuelled animosity towards members of the executive team and the board. Some of the criticism directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unwarranted and unacceptable."

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

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

Looking back to happier times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Rodgers respected Dermot and, truly, to nobody else.

It was the figure who drew the heat when his returned happened, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most controversial hiring, the reappearance of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have described it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had his back. Gradually, Rodgers employed the charm, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an uneasy truce with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

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

This occurred in his initial tenure and it transpired once more, with added intensity, over the last year. Rodgers publicly commented about the sluggish way the team conducted their player acquisitions, the interminable waiting for targets to be secured, then not landed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he stated about the necessity for what he termed "flexibility" in the transfer window. Supporters concurred with him.

Even when the club splurged unprecedented sums of money in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the costly another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - all of whom have cut it to date, with one already having left - Rodgers demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in public.

He planted 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 usually minimize it and nearly contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It looked like Rodgers was playing a risky strategy.

A few months back there was a story in a publication that allegedly came from a source associated with the club. It said that the manager was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was managing his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be present and he was engineering his way out, this was the implication of the article.

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

The leak was poisonous, naturally, and it was meant to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. If there was a probe then we learned nothing further about it.

By then it was clear the manager was losing the backing of the people in charge.

The frequent {gripes