How Unrecoverable Breakdown Resulted in a Brutal Parting for Brendan Rodgers & Celtic FC

Just fifteen minutes following the club issued the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' surprising resignation via a perfunctory short statement, the bombshell arrived, from the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious anger.

Through an extensive statement, key investor Dermot Desmond savaged his old chum.

The man he convinced to join the team when Rangers were gaining ground in that period and needed putting back in a box. And the man he again relied on after the previous manager left for another club in the recent offseason.

So intense was the ferocity of Desmond's critique, the jaw-dropping return of the former boss was practically an secondary note.

Two decades after his exit from the organization, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an continuous circuit of appearances and the playing of all his past successes at the team, Martin O'Neill is back in the dugout.

For now - and maybe for a while. Based on comments he has said recently, O'Neill has been keen to get another job. He'll see this role as the perfect opportunity, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the place where he enjoyed such success and adulation.

Would he relinquish it readily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic could possibly reach out to contact their ex-manager, but O'Neill will serve as a balm for the moment.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's return - as surreal as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest 'wow!' development was the harsh manner Desmond wrote of the former manager.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a labeling of him as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a spreader of falsehoods; disruptive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's wish for self-preservation at the expense of others," stated he.

For somebody who prizes decorum and places great store in dealings being done with confidentiality, if not complete secrecy, this was a further example of how unusual situations have grown at the club.

Desmond, the club's dominant figure, operates in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the power to make all the important calls he wants without having the obligation of justifying them in any public forum.

He never attend team annual meetings, dispatching his offspring, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, does interviews about the team unless they're glowing in nature. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to support the club with private missives to news outlets, but nothing is heard in the open.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to be. And it's just what he contradicted when going full thermonuclear on the manager on that day.

The directive from the team is that he resigned, but reading Desmond's criticism, carefully, you have to wonder why he allow it to get such a critical point?

If the manager is guilty of all of the accusations that the shareholder is claiming he's guilty of, then it's fair to inquire why had been the manager not dismissed?

Desmond has accused him of distorting things in public that did not tally with the facts.

He claims Rodgers' words "played a part to a toxic atmosphere around the team and fuelled hostility towards members of the executive team and the board. A portion of the abuse aimed at them, and at their families, has been completely unjustified and unacceptable."

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

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

To return to happier days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, truly, to no one other.

It was Desmond who drew the criticism when his returned happened, after the previous manager.

It was the most controversial appointment, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have put it, the return of the shameless one, who departed in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Gradually, the manager turned on the charm, delivered the victories and the trophies, and an fragile truce with the supporters turned into a love-in again.

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

This occurred in his initial tenure and it transpired again, with added intensity, over the last year. He publicly commented about the sluggish process the team went about their transfer business, the endless delay for prospects to be secured, then not landed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was believed.

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

Even when the club splurged record amounts 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 cut it to date, with Idah already having left - the manager demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in public.

He set a controversy about a lack of cohesion within the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent media briefing he would usually minimize it and almost reverse what he stated.

Internal issues? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It looked like Rodgers was playing a dangerous strategy.

Earlier this year there was a story in a newspaper that allegedly came from a source close to the club. It said that the manager was damaging Celtic with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be present and he was arranging his exit, this was the tone of the article.

The fans were enraged. They then viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his directors did not support his vision to bring success.

The leak was poisonous, naturally, and it was meant to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He called for an inquiry and for the guilty person to be dismissed. If there was a examination then we learned no more about it.

By then it was plain Rodgers was losing the support of the people above him.

The regular {gripes