Sons' sorrow

[Always the Sons]

42 minutes ago, BallochSonsFan said:

I'm thinking more from a football fan viewpoint. A game in, game out over the course of a long time fan. People who would hopefully be more willing to ask difficult questions of the manager.

There's no playing experience on the board.

While I take your point, I think that's a bit unfair on the board. Now I'm guessing but I reckon you are more a Wayne Gretzky than a Lionel Messi but that doesn't mean you couldn't ask effective questions in the board room to the manager. Based on your posts I'm sure you would ask tough questions even though you have no Scotland caps .

While you could reasonable assume having playing experience gives you some advantage in the board room, I think there are other management qualities that are more important.

Having playing experience on the board is no guarantee of success just look at Thistle,Morton, Hearts last seasons  and various others. 

For the previous successes of Celtic and this season Rangers who were the experience players on their boards challenging Rodgers, Lennon and Gerrard ?      

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

23 minutes ago, Always the Sons said:

While I take your point, I think that's a bit unfair on the board. Now I'm guessing but I reckon you are more a Wayne Gretzky than a Lionel Messi but that doesn't mean you couldn't ask effective questions in the board room to the manager. Based on your posts I'm sure you would ask tough questions even though you have no Scotland caps .

While you could reasonable assume having playing experience gives you some advantage in the board room, I think there are other management qualities that are more important.

Having playing experience on the board is no guarantee of success just look at Thistle,Morton, Hearts last seasons  and various others. 

For the previous successes of Celtic and this season Rangers who were the experience players on their boards challenging Rodgers, Lennon and Gerrard ?      

I’m not suggesting “playing experience” is what required to be considered one of the “football people” on the board. I’m suggesting that some sort of experience in the game in general would be what I’d imagine qualifies as being a football person on the board. As far as I’m aware she has absolutely no footballing background whatsoever.

No offence to her whatsoever, I’m sure she’s where she is on merit, but I’m not entirely sure I’d be expecting her to be the one questioning Jim Duffy on his signing policy or tactics. 

[The Moonster]

I don't think any questions need asked of Duffy any more, it's clear how he operates and he won't change now. The board simply need to decide if he's the guy to take us forward. He'll need to do a lot in these remaining games to convince me he is. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

9 hours ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

I don’t know what Colin Hosie’s background is but Stephanie Park is considered one of the “football people” on the board? Isn’t she the Trust rep? She has about as much experience in the professional game as Donald Morrison, if she’s one of the football people on the board then we are in trouble.

I see this in a lot of threads, supporters demand "football people" on boards or named club people.

I've  never understood the qualifying criteria. At what point can you claim to be a "football person".

Maybe @BallochSonsFancan enlighten us?

[BallochSonsFan]

24 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

I see this in a lot of threads, supporters demand "football people" on boards or named club people.

I've  never understood the qualifying criteria. At what point can you claim to be a "football person".

Maybe @BallochSonsFancan enlighten us?

I think that a football board needs to have a mix of skills. At least one of those should be somebody with an understanding of football. That could be the manager themselves. It could be a former player or coach. It could be somebody with a lot of experience in football administration. It could be somebody who has been around the game for a long period of time. The board make decisions about the club and whilst that should never extend to influencing team selections, exactly who holds the manager to account? Who asks him if his signing policy has been acceptable and challenges him to do better? Are managers untouchable? Do boards simply sit back and let the manager get on with things until the end of the season and tough luck if it's gone badly? It also requires somebody to be responsible for the football side of things. Somebody who is tasked with asking the difficult questions of the manager. The manager has to be accountable to somebody. It wouldn't be acceptable if Duffy was left to get on with things without any kind of scrutiny.

We've known about the restart of games for long enough. We've known about the size of the squad and the lack of creative and attacking options for long enough. Duffy signs a keeper who has been without a club for nearly a year and a young defender on loan. That not worth questioning? His performance in the transfer market has been consistently poor. Some of that has been self inflicted - there have been players left waiting on calls from the manager in previous summers who ended up taking contracts elsewhere because they couldn't wait any longer for an offer from the club. 

Somebody at board level has to be able to hold the manager to account and if that's the board member or members who have been around football the longest then that's who it would need to be. Somebody has to be able to ask the manager the difficult questions.

[Sergeant Wilson]

25 minutes ago, BallochSonsFan said:

I think that a football board needs to have a mix of skills. At least one of those should be somebody with an understanding of football. That could be the manager themselves. It could be a former player or coach. It could be somebody with a lot of experience in football administration. It could be somebody who has been around the game for a long period of time. The board make decisions about the club and whilst that should never extend to influencing team selections, exactly who holds the manager to account? Who asks him if his signing policy has been acceptable and challenges him to do better? Are managers untouchable? Do boards simply sit back and let the manager get on with things until the end of the season and tough luck if it's gone badly? It also requires somebody to be responsible for the football side of things. Somebody who is tasked with asking the difficult questions of the manager. The manager has to be accountable to somebody. It wouldn't be acceptable if Duffy was left to get on with things without any kind of scrutiny.

We've known about the restart of games for long enough. We've known about the size of the squad and the lack of creative and attacking options for long enough. Duffy signs a keeper who has been without a club for nearly a year and a young defender on loan. That not worth questioning? His performance in the transfer market has been consistently poor. Some of that has been self inflicted - there have been players left waiting on calls from the manager in previous summers who ended up taking contracts elsewhere because they couldn't wait any longer for an offer from the club. 

Somebody at board level has to be able to hold the manager to account and if that's the board member or members who have been around football the longest then that's who it would need to be. Somebody has to be able to ask the manager the difficult questions.

I've got an understanding of football, could I do it, or you? If it's a former player, who identifies him as suitable, another football person or a non-football person?

The point in making is, it's a very inexact science and cliches like football person or a Dumbarton man don't help.

Think about football men who in theory should've been brilliant, you wouldn't want them near running a club.

[BallochSonsFan]

It's an inexact science. That doesn't mean that a board should never be able to hold a manager to account. Ultimately if Duffy gets it wrong in our remaining games then it's the board who will need to try and pick up the pieces. At what point does the board question whether or not Duffy's performance as manager has been acceptable? 

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 minutes ago, BallochSonsFan said:

It's an inexact science. That doesn't mean that a board should never be able to hold a manager to account. Ultimately if Duffy gets it wrong in our remaining games then it's the board who will need to try and pick up the pieces. At what point does the board question whether or not Duffy's performance as manager has been acceptable? 

My point is there are people capable of doing that without the qualification of being a "football person". Do you get a certificate after a qualifying period?

[BallochSonsFan]

7 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

My point is there are people capable of doing that without the qualification of being a "football person". Do you get a certificate after a qualifying period?

Who?

Who on the current board would you expect to have a frank discussion with Duffy about his performance as manager? And what would direct that discussion?

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 minute ago, BallochSonsFan said:

Who?

Who on the current board would you expect to have a frank discussion with Duffy about his performance as manager? And what would direct that discussion?

Are you mixing me up with a Dumbarton supporter? I'm not, I'm just questioning the wisdom of a commonly held view on this forum about the need for a "football person".

More often referred to as a "fitba'  man" or a "sellick man" etc.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

I've got an understanding of football, could I do it, or you? If it's a former player, who identifies him as suitable, another football person or a non-football person?
The point in making is, it's a very inexact science and cliches like football person or a Dumbarton man don't help.
Think about football men who in theory should've been brilliant, you wouldn't want them near running a club.

We all know that it's an inexact science, but I suspect what we currently have at Dumbarton is that the two 'football persons' that we have at the club are the Manager and his assistant, with the former being a strong personality. IMO that may to a degree set the relationship between the Board and team matters, and if so it may not be ideal. On the wider point of 'football people' in Boardrooms, I definitely think that for smaller clubs it is of real benefit as they bring knowledge of the game and crucially, contacts. That often helps clubs to be pro-active and not just-reactive, and in the correct situation actually assists the Manager by discussing and sharing the 'football' stuff.

[the snudge]

I think what other clubs have to bridge that gap between the board and manager is a director of football but I seriously doubt we're in the position to fund that appointment.

I'm hoping these signings prevail. We've always had this kind of scatter gun signing policy in the last decade. How many players have signed and left after playing a couple of games? 

Perhaps we do need a youth system? 

 

[optimistic]

Settle an argument please

Do we pay for loanees?

Or do we pay their wages, or a percentage?

[BallochSonsFan]

9 minutes ago, optimistic said:

Settle an argument please

Do we pay for loanees?

Or do we pay their wages, or a percentage?

It depends on the loan.

Generally I'd expect the club to pay a small amount of the player's wage but no loan fee. We're not operating at a level where teams would expect a loan fee.

[super-son]

Obviously never going to happen but I think the best way of fitting our best players into the team would be a 352 formation.

Neill McGeeven McAllister
Wardrop Wedderburn Carsy Rico
Frizzell
Wilson Crossan

More likely it will be

Wardrop Neill McGeever Rico
Forbes Carsy Wedderburn Crossan
Frizzell Wilson

Let's see what Duffball serves us up today.

[GordyBrow]

5 minutes ago, super-son said:

Obviously never going to happen but I think the best way of fitting our best players into the team would be a 352 formation.

Neill McGeeven McAllister
Wardrop Wedderburn Carsy Rico
Frizzell
Wilson Crossan

More likely it will be

Wardrop Neill McGeever Rico
Forbes Carsy Wedderburn Crossan
Frizzell Wilson

Let's see what Duffball serves us up today.

I’ve been toying with almost exactly that but swap Wedderburn into defence and have Forbes and Carsy in the middle. I think Wedderburn might help us play out from the back a bit more and skip the midfield with long bells less often. Won’t happen though.

[cameron2000]

Obviously never going to happen but I think the best way of fitting our best players into the team would be a 352 formation.

Neill McGeeven McAllister
Wardrop Wedderburn Carsy Rico
Frizzell
Wilson Crossan

More likely it will be

Wardrop Neill McGeever Rico
Forbes Carsy Wedderburn Crossan
Frizzell Wilson

Let's see what Duffball serves us up today.

3-5-2 wouldn’t work. Wardrop and Quitongo aren’t quick enough and don’t possess the consistent quality you need from Wing-backs. Guarantee you it would turn into a flat back 5.

The defence wouldn’t have good enough distribution either - we’d be forced to drop one of Neil or McGeever.

[FifeSons]

I think we actually could've done without the first game back being such a crucial relegation clash.

[The Moonster]

2 hours ago, optimistic said:

Settle an argument please

Do we pay for loanees?

Or do we pay their wages, or a percentage?

Higher profile players will generally command a fee (Chris Kane, Dom Thomas) from their club. Lesser known players (everyone Duffy signs) probably not.

[sonsanorak]

Is that a light or a speaker about to fall from the stand roof?