stewarty

I think in fairness to Gerrard, and he has spoken about this in press conferences so far, he is looking at the whole squad and the workload that is required potentially between now and whole season - particularly if we manage to get to the Europa League group stages. And therefore during pre-season, its been a balancing act between giving each player sufficient game time to make sure they are ready as and when called upon. We would all like to start with a seven goal scudding of some jobbers from Perth, and there is no doubt there is still a lot to be worked on, but we managed to grind out a result in a fashion we rarely managed last season at crucial times. That doesn't mean there are not concerns. I too felt we should have changed things earlier. Jones came on and caused problems - and was also more effective defensively. Ojo's final ball and decision making was poor - something we saw on Thursday too, and we are creating lots of chances but not taking enough of them. Lots for the manager to think on, but even at this early stage of the season I can see things that have improved from last year.

I'm full of early season optimism. 55 it is!

The other aspect of Candeias going is his relationship with Morelos. Another indicator that Alfy will leave in this window?

Good news. Happy with that.

The collective noun for BBC pitch side reporters is "an exuberance"

Sturridge would surely be on wages we cannot get close to?

Welcome to Rangers, Joe Aribo! Delighted this one is confirmed. Who's next?

Agreed. We know there is something there with Lafferty and (I think) Grezda, but the manager doesn't have faith in them so there is no point in them continuing when we could bring in other players who the manager would plan to play.

He's just bitter that he's not getting the fee he might have got had he gone to another English club.

The issue is one of resources. We have more resources so are not forced to blood youngsters at the same rate. Celtic aside, and to varying degrees, every other club in the country faces the same issue.

Arguably by pitting those young players into games which are tighter, where the competition and consequences are real, is likely to increase the pace of development and allow the likes of Motherwell or Hearts to focus on those players who have the extra mental application that is needed to succeed at any level.

Great point. And one that I think is encouraging about the re-focused youth development strategy we are putting in place. The emphasis appears to be not only on developing players for the first team but also on developing young men and preparing them for a career in football, regardless whether that is with us. For me the challenge now is to monetise those young players to reinvest by regularly generating loan and transfer fees where we can.

Its not without risk, but as was pointed out, the challenge in pitting ourselves against teams with different styles, tactics, etc, seems to have been weighed up and the team seem confident that its the right way to go. Pitting younger players into higher age groups in order to test them early and often, seems to be the strategy. Where that strategy falls down in Scotland seems to be at U-20 level when the better players such as Middleton outgrow the development squad but aren't quite able to tie down a first team starting position, but need games to develop. I imagine we will see a number of the older reserves go on development loans as that means we can pull them back to play in the various European friendlies.

Perhaps its the subtleties of the french language that didn't translate particularly well but the bit in bold is what struck me about this. I've no idea whether Platini has been up to some dodgy dealings or otherwise, but the language of the lawyer struck me as odd.

Excellent - will try and come along

They tend to have good info consistently. Worth a follow

Apologies for the repitition, I couldn't work out how to get the full thread posted in one.

Thats a good point - certainly the board would take a collective responsibility for any decisions taken and would be bound by confidentiality in terms of things they could discuss openly. Again, though, for me it comes down to the individual and whether they could manage the competing demands and priorities of the two roles, as well as their ability to influence.

Its absolutely no surprise that the Memorial Walls own solicitors think they have a case to be answered. In fact, I'd be shocked if they didn't jump on the chance to pump them for billable hours. But as I say, it all sounds very odd based on the article above. More information is needed because at this point it seems like a tactic to get us to settle - i.e. we will go to the press again if you don't give us the work

I think potentially we are looking at this from different points of view. An individual Board member fulfilling those duties should be able influence or hold to account when doing those and other duties typical of any boardroom. Ultimately there are other options available to a Director in a worst case scenario - e.g. to blow the whistle, referral to regulators, etc. If you are saying that there is nobody currently in the ranks of club1872 capable of doing such then that is a different matter. The other dynamic would be the ability of one board vs an alliance of other members who can effectively overrule an individual. But again, that speaks to the skill, integrity and influence of the individual.

I'm saying that I think on a practical level it would be difficult to find someone who could balance the demands on them personally, even though I support the idea. In terms of what they could do to hold the Board to account, I can think of dozens of things... Participation in Board meetings, developing strategy and objectives, reviewing and challenging performance management reports in relation to agreed objectives/ plans, scrutinising decisions that require Board approval, challenging decisions from a fan perspective, participating on Audit Committee meetings (if appointed) to review the work of independent auditors.... I could go on. The key, as with any board appointment, is finding someone with the personal experience, gravitas and integrity to fulfil the role effectively.

Ach who cares about Corporate Governance anyway! In all seriousness, football clubs are a different breed to normal companies, in the sense that so much emotion is attached to running them effectively. The tools available to any appointed non-executive director are fairly standard, but the difficulty would be in finding someone who is able to balance the competing demands of fan politics and their fiduciary responsibilities as an appointed director. Given that we struggle to find many who last the course in terms of fan politics, let alone be capable of managing the conflict mentioned above, I too have doubts that appointing a fan's representative to the PLC/ Football Club board would work on a practical level

Seems his off-field antics as well as his lack of application have finally seen the Gaffer lose patience. It seems the game vs Liverpool U23's a couple of months back was the final straw. Lafferty wasn't even making the squad in the final few weeks.

Very odd. If someone has entered into a contract without sense-checking the details then some serious questions need to be answered.

I would wager it is significantly more than £200k per year tbh. Celtic have heavily lawyered up in the past - which is part of their strategy of influence. We should adopt the same until such time as the process is fair and transparent. I suspect we will continue to be paying for lawyers for some time to come.