The snipers just keep on coming for the Celtic manager. It’s tiresome now.

t was Joseph Heller who wrote in Catch-22, “Just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.”

Henry Kissinger is usually credited with the more clipped variation: “Even the paranoid have enemies.”

And I don’t know whether Brendan Rodgers is paranoid or not, but he has to know that in some circles a serious narrative is being pushed against him, one designed to undermine him—for God alone knows what purpose.

Almost certainly, all the narrative lines currently being road-tested will be deployed in full when Rodgers leaves at the end of this campaign.

They will say he wasted money—which, as my friend Quentin dismantled last night in terms of the three big signings from last summer, is nonsense. They will say he is tactically inflexible. That charge holds some water, but only to a point. If Rodgers were not tactically flexible, we would not have gone from the team that conceded seven goals in Dortmund to the one that almost left Munich with a win.

The thing about the campaign against Rodgers is that it’s very insidious. Almost low-key. But not quite. See, it can’t be low-key and hope to succeed. But you have to know what to look for—and you have to be looking—in order to see it. And if that makes us sound a little paranoid… well, see above. See the two quotes I’ve already mentioned.

But for a couple of penalty kicks, last season would have gone down as one of the most memorable in the recent history of our club.

And yet it’s been obvious for some time that there is a sustained effort underway to paint last summer’s transfer business as a failure.

It’s also been equally clear that part of the rationale behind that is to deny Rodgers the chance to spend the same again, and as I’ll cover later, I don’t care where this rubbish emanates from; it needs to be stamped on and stamped on hard.

The other part is more straightforward: it’s an attack on Rodgers himself. And if you’re going to do that in the cold light of day, you either prepare to take the bullets that come your way, or you employ plausible deniability. You couch what you’re saying in ways that disguise both the meaning and the intent.

Disguised or not, it’s pretty obvious that the undermining of Rodgers is now in full swing, and that certain outlets are determined to push the narrative as hard as they can. Undermining the players he signed is just the first step. Undermining his decision-making and his management of the team is obviously next.

Once you know what to look for, the patterns start to suggest themselves.

Now, here’s the thing; that’s dangerous. You have to be careful in this job, as in many others, not to fall into what’s called confirmation bias. Because that’s a slippery slope and things start to get a little bit murky.

Amongst the most persistent critics of Rodgers right now are the lads on the Open Goal podcast. This is something we’d been discussing on The Trinity Tims podcast, and I think all three of us had intended to write about it.

But then The Celtic Star did a piece that pretty much said everything we were going to say; that the Open Goal podcast is actually owned by one of Peter Lawwell’s sons and that the optics of them suggesting Rodgers wasted money last summer are not great.

It’s also worth considering that Paul Lawwell’s brother was employed by the club, and resigned or was let go, presumably following a clash with Rodgers himself. Now, I’m not saying that’s what happened with Mark Lawwell. But it is what people believe happened. And as I keep saying—perception is reality.

Silence breeds suspicion. In that silence, all manner of wild ideas take root. This is why big organisations have a clear communication strategy and do their hiring and firing with the utmost professionalism, and in a public way that opens them to scrutiny.

That’s why I talk about the optics. I’m not necessarily talking about how things are… I’m talking about how things look. And this looks like shit.

They spent part of last week criticising three of last summer’s signings and suggesting that two of them might not get many games—because, in their view, they’re just not very good. The third, which would be Adam Idah, apparently won’t get games either if the club goes on to sign a big-name striker.

So, by this logic, Rodgers hasn’t done anything right in the transfer market.

Except—wait—that’s not what they’re saying at all.

Because, you see, Rodgers did spend money on two other players last summer. One of them was Luke McCowan, and the other was Paulo Bernardo.

Now, Bernardo was a strange one. He was actually a Mark Lawwell signing—the only one, perhaps, that Rodgers thought was worth hanging on to.

McCowan is pure Rodgers. And he’s been, pound for pound, one of the best bits of transfer business we’ve done in years. But it’s not enough for these guys to just say that.

Instead, the question becomes: why doesn’t McCowan start more games? And the answer to that is obvious—there are better players in front of him.

But that wouldn’t fit the narrative, would it? So the question becomes: “Why isn’t McCowan starting more?” And they go further than that. Because now it’s: “Why isn’t Paulo Bernardo getting more time on the pitch?”

See, it turns out there were two brilliant signings last summer after all. And if those are the players Rodgers is supposedly neglecting so he can keep playing his so-called duds… well, the story writes itself, doesn’t it?

They seem to think football is played 14-a-side.

Because how exactly are you supposed to get the players they think should be starting into the same lineup as the ones who are there right now, on merit?

Rodgers is apparently supposed to be starting Bernardo and McCowan. Fine. Who are you dropping from the midfield, then?

Because they’ve also been talking up Nygren. Nygren’s a great signing, apparently. Nygren deserves to be starting ahead of Engels. So, Rodgers can spot a player after all, eah? Is that the thing? As long as it’s a player under £3 million.

Is Nygren one of the three best midfielders at the club? You can believe that if you want. But if you’re also making the case that McCowan and Bernardo should be starting, you’ve got a bit of a tricky problem to solve.

Because at that point, you’re down to only two names left to drop: Reo Hatate… and the captain.

Which is where their wee theory dies on its arse.

Because no-one has the balls to say that out loud.

It’s become common, in certain quarters, to second guess Rodgers’ decision-making. It’s now standard practice to look at his team selections, point the finger, and suggest he’s got it wrong.

But Rodgers’ managerial record strongly suggests this is a guy who knows exactly what he’s doing. And maybe—just maybe—instead of playing armchair manager, those within the Celtic support who actually want Rodgers to stay, who recognise the man’s talent, might want to cease and desist from pushing that line.

Unless, of course, the intent is to push that line.

I’m not saying it is. I’m saying it looks an awful lot like it is.

And maybe people want to be careful with that too.

As for those who think all we do around here is bash the board, let me make one thing very clear: if Rodgers had been convinced to sign a new deal, much of the speculation about what’s going on would already be dead and buried.

If the club were doing a better job of bringing in the players the manager needs—and the fans expect—then none of what we’re saying would hold water. In fact, we probably wouldn’t be saying it at all.

We are reacting to a situation. We didn’t cause this situation. We are where our glorious leaders have put us and only action – the sort that answers some of the questions and erases some of the doubts – can make us change the record.