How Irretrievable Collapse Resulted in a Brutal Separation for Rodgers & Celtic FC

Just fifteen minutes following Celtic released the news of their manager's shock resignation via a perfunctory five-paragraph communication, the howitzer arrived, from the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious fury.

In an extensive statement, major shareholder Dermot Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

This individual he convinced to join the club when their rivals were gaining ground in 2016 and required being in their place. And the figure he again relied on after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

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

Two decades after his exit from the club, and after a large part of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous series of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at the team, O'Neill is back in the dugout.

For now - and maybe for a time. Considering comments he has expressed recently, O'Neill has been keen to secure another job. He will see this role as the perfect chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

Would he give it up readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic might well make a call to contact their ex-manager, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's return - as surreal as it is - can be parked because the biggest 'wow!' development was the brutal way Desmond described the former manager.

It was a forceful endeavor at defamation, a labeling of Rodgers as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, misleading and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the cost of others," wrote he.

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

Desmond, the club's dominant presence, operates in the background. The absentee totem, the individual with the power to make all the major decisions he pleases without having the obligation of explaining them in any public forum.

He never participate in team AGMs, dispatching his offspring, his son, instead. He rarely, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in nature. And even then, he's reluctant to communicate.

He has been known on an occasion or two to defend the organization with confidential messages to news outlets, but no statement is heard in the open.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to remain. And it's exactly what he went against when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on Monday.

The official line from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading Desmond's invective, line by line, one must question why did he allow it to get this far down the line?

Assuming the manager is guilty of all of the accusations that Desmond is alleging he's responsible for, then it's fair to ask why was the coach not dismissed?

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

He says Rodgers' words "played a part to a toxic atmosphere around the team and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the executive team and the directors. Some of the criticism directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unjustified and unacceptable."

What an extraordinary charge, indeed. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we speak.

'Rodgers' Ambition Clashed with the Club's Strategy Again

To return to better days, they were tight, the two men. Rodgers praised the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Brendan respected Dermot and, really, to no one other.

It was the figure who drew the criticism when his comeback occurred, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most controversial appointment, the reappearance of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other supporters would have described it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had his back. Gradually, Rodgers turned on the charm, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship again.

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

This occurred in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with bells on, over the last year. He spoke openly about the sluggish way the team conducted their player acquisitions, the endless waiting for targets to be landed, then missed, as was too often the case as far as he was concerned.

Repeatedly he spoke about the necessity for what he termed "agility" in the market. Supporters concurred with him.

Despite the club splurged record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - all of whom have cut it so far, with one since having departed - Rodgers pushed for increased resources and, often, he expressed this in public.

He planted a controversy about a lack of cohesion inside the team and then walked away. When asked about his remarks at his subsequent news conference he would usually downplay it and almost contradict what he said.

Internal issues? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It appeared like Rodgers was playing a risky game.

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that allegedly came from a insider close to the club. It claimed that Rodgers was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his true aim was managing his departure plan.

He desired not to be present and he was arranging his way out, this was the implication of the article.

The fans were enraged. They now viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his directors did not back his vision to achieve success.

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

At that point it was plain the manager was shedding the backing of the people in charge.

The regular {gripes