The first real hint of the harm Celtic has done to itself has just surfaced in England.

It hasn’t taken long, but the first sign that Desmond’s statement is having a negative impact on the club has already surfaced south of the border — in The Guardian.

Everyone who looks at Scottish football right now from the outside sees our club in one hell of a mess. It was bad enough that they saw a manager who was failing, largely in their interpretation, because of a disastrous transfer window and poor results on the pitch.

But these are smart people. Much of the media in England is a class above what passes for it in Scotland, and they know what they’re looking at when they see it. They’re not afraid to call it out for what it is.

I’m not talking about the shock jocks on TalkSport, where they get paid to be controversial and dig up whatever madness they can muster. I’m talking about the real deal — the Jonathan Liews of this world and others who know exactly what they’re doing, people who see this whole environment up here as a little bit weird.

The article I just read in The Guardian doesn’t come from one of their top-tier sportswriters, but it’s credible enough that you take it seriously. It’s not really a hatchet job on the club. It’s about Ange, and about why he should be careful about what his next career move is. There are a couple of contradictions in the piece — for example, that he wouldn’t get any credit if he came back here — and although the article admits that we might, for once, have a title race on our hands, it still reads as deeply concerning.

Because that article makes no bones about Celtic being a shambles. It compares our largest shareholder with the Nottingham Forest chairman, who’s sacked two managers since the start of this campaign, and who hired and fired Nuno Espírito Santo after just forty days. The message in that piece is clear: if Desmond can turn on Rodgers like that — whether Rodgers is guilty or not of the things in that statement — then he can do that to anybody.

Celtic is a place best avoided.

That’s just one journalist writing about it in the context of Ange. But there will certainly be others down south writing the same about Kieran McKenna or anyone else of calibre whom we might approach. If that’s what the journalists are saying, you can bet people inside football are already talking about it too. These things spread fast.

This is the problem with having so many people at Celtic making football decisions without understanding football culture. They might think they do, but their understanding exists only in the tiny Scottish football ecosystem — a world the rest of football barely notices. They don’t understand how the game works on a fundamental level. And here’s how it really works: everyone inside it knows everyone else’s business. Managers talk to one another, to players, to friends. There are no secrets in football, NDAs or not. Things always get out.

Rodgers doesn’t even have a non-disclosure agreement. If there’s chaos and dysfunction behind the scenes at Celtic Park — and Desmond’s own statement confirms there is — then you can be sure the reality is worse than what we see. The problems will make what’s visible seem mild by comparison.

Fans might never get the full picture of what’s going on inside our club, but I guarantee much of the rest of football already knows. Much of the English media will know soon too, once Rodgers starts talking — on or off the record. And he will. When he does, even if he’s only half-honest, the picture he paints will be atrocious. He won’t need to exaggerate.

We already know enough from what’s on record. Statements by Desmond himself, by Michael Nicholson, and by others in and around the club — including Rodgers — have exposed the way we do business, the way we think, and the way we cling to a “blueprint” dating back two decades to a different era in the game.

The journalist who wrote the Guardian piece warned that Celtic would be a step backwards for Ange, not a happy homecoming. He’s both right and wrong. Most people at Celtic would love to have him back. My own view is that it would be a disaster.

Not because Ange is a bad manager, but because he’s too similar to Rodgers in all the ways that matter.

He’s too much his own man. He’s insistent on doing things his own way. He wouldn’t settle for whatever junk they throw at him.

Ange would demand backing. Ange would demand autonomy.

And that is precisely the last thing Celtic wants right now. That’s why I don’t believe for a second that Ange Postecoglou will walk back through those doors. There’s nothing in that article that tells him anything he doesn’t already know.

Here’s the thing, though: although the article appeared in The Guardian, the writer — John Duerden — was filing from Asia. He’s written before in similar contexts, including about Kevin Muscat and the collapse of the deal to take him to Ibrox.

Rodgers is a big enough name, and Celtic still a big enough club, that this story has spread far beyond Scotland.

Even in Asia, people close to the game are warning that both Glasgow clubs are toxic.

It was obvious that as we kept floundering and hobbling ourselves, some kind of disaster was coming. What we didn’t see was how far the reputational damage would spread.

This whole season has been one long act of self-harm.

The moment that broke a lot of us was that leak to The Sun.

The attack on Rodgers’ integrity and character.

The club had a responsibility to find the leaker, stop the leaker, and kick the leaker out. When they failed to do that, you had to assume they agreed with the story. That did two things.

First, it shattered the relationship between the manager and the club and undermined him in the eyes of his players — the very people he needs to have authority with. That was always going to affect performances, results, and dressing-room dynamics. It did, and it has. But the greater damage was reputational. A club that treats its manager that way, while he’s still in the building trying to win things, isn’t a club anyone wants to work for.

Desmond’s statement made matters worse.

Celtic now looks like a basket-case club run by a man having a break with normalcy.

The stories about Desmond  don’t just make him sound like a control freak.

They make the whole culture of the club look like a toxic soup you wouldn’t want to dip a toe in.

The consequences reach far beyond our borders and our little Celtic Park bubble. The job of finding a new manager has become harder than it needed to be — and more expensive. They failed to manager Rodgers well. His resignation means they’re now doing this on an expedited timeline.

That increases the risk of another rushed, botched decision — after a whole summer of mistakes.

As I said earlier, these people didn’t want to lead. They hoped to stumble on until the end of the season, blame Rodgers for everything, and then appoint someone who’d take us back to the “good old days” — when managers did as they were told. That plan lies in ruins, along with much else.

And already there are bubbles rising on the surface of what’s festering beneath. This whole affair has made us look unprofessional and unserious. I’m sorry if that’s not what some people want to hear. I’m sorry if others still believe it’ll all be fine by the end of the international break. The truth is that we’ve made our position incredibly vulnerable, and under this leadership we may be stuck here for quite some time.

That article was a warning to Ange not to come back — and, on the surface, it’s a fair warning.

If you’re ambitious Scottish football doesn’t look like the place to be.

But the piece also says something deeper. People no longer look at Celtic and see competence or composure or success. They see a club tested by difficult circumstances and found wanting. Outside observers don’t see a board that’s supportive or steady under pressure.

They see one that’s reactive, vindictive, and self-destructive.

And here’s what might surprise them most.

Agents, managers and players like working with boards that are accountable. They don’t want to join a club where, if they make a mistake, they’ll get blamed — and if someone else makes a mistake, they’ll still get blamed. Right now, that’s how we look.

A good reputation takes a long time to build, but it’s easy to lose.

What we’ve broken won’t be easily fixed. The real trouble is this: we’re run by people who don’t even recognise what they’ve done.

They don’t know anything needs to change.

So expect more damage before we even start to get a grip and rebuild what’s just been lost.