How Irretrievable Breakdown Led to a Brutal Separation for Brendan Rodgers & Celtic FC

Just fifteen minutes following Celtic released the announcement of their manager's surprising departure via a perfunctory short communication, the howitzer landed, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in apparent fury.

In an extensive statement, key investor Dermot Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

The man he persuaded to come to the team when their rivals were getting uppity in that period and required being back in a box. And the man he once more turned to after Ange Postecoglou departed to another club in the recent offseason.

So intense was the severity of Desmond's takedown, the astonishing return of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

Two decades after his exit from the club, and after much of his recent life was given over to an continuous series of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is back in the dugout.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Considering things he has expressed lately, O'Neill has been eager to secure a new position. He'll view this role as the ultimate chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a homecoming to the place where he experienced such success and adulation.

Would he relinquish it readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic could possibly reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but O'Neill will act as a balm for the moment.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's return - however strange as it may be - can be parked because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the harsh way the shareholder described Rodgers.

It was a full-blooded attempt at character assassination, a labeling of him as untrustful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "One individual's wish for self-preservation at the expense of others," wrote Desmond.

For somebody who prizes decorum and places great store in business being done with confidentiality, if not complete privacy, here was another illustration of how unusual things have become at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's most powerful presence, moves in the background. The absentee totem, the one with the authority to take all the major decisions he pleases without having the responsibility of explaining them in any open setting.

He never participate in team AGMs, dispatching his offspring, Ross, in his place. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're glowing in tone. And even then, he's reluctant 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 heard in the open.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to be. And it's just what he contradicted when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the team is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing Desmond's invective, line by line, you have to wonder why he permit it to get such a critical point?

Assuming the manager is guilty of all of the things that Desmond is claiming he's guilty of, then it's fair to inquire why was the manager not removed?

He has accused him of spinning information in public that did not tally with the facts.

He claims his statements "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the club and encouraged hostility towards members of the management and the board. A portion of the abuse directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and improper."

Such an extraordinary allegation, indeed. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we speak.

His Ambition Conflicted with the Club's Model Once More'

Looking back to happier times, they were tight, the two men. Rodgers lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Rodgers deferred to him and, really, to nobody else.

It was the figure who took the heat when Rodgers' comeback happened, after the previous manager.

This marked the most divisive appointment, the return of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have put it, the return of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' support. Gradually, the manager employed the charm, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the supporters turned into a love-in again.

There was always - always - going to be a point when his goals came in contact with Celtic's business model, though.

It happened in his initial tenure and it happened again, with added intensity, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow process the team went about their transfer business, the endless delay for targets to be secured, then not landed, as was frequently the case as far as he was concerned.

Repeatedly he spoke about the need for what he called "flexibility" in the transfer window. Supporters agreed with him.

Even when the club splurged unprecedented sums of funds in a twelve-month period on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have cut it to date, with Idah already having left - the manager pushed for increased resources and, often, he did it in openly.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion inside the team and then walked away. When asked about his comments at his next media briefing he would typically minimize it and nearly contradict what he said.

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

A few months back there was a report in a publication that allegedly came from a insider associated with the club. It claimed that the manager was damaging Celtic with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was orchestrating his departure plan.

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

Supporters were enraged. They then viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his board members wouldn't support his plans to achieve triumph.

The leak was damaging, naturally, and it was intended to harm him, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a examination then we heard no more about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was shedding the support of the individuals above him.

The frequent {gripes