Squad for next Season

[TAFKAC]

17 minutes ago, DreamOakTree said:

I’ll try one more time to get back on topic:

Do you feel that Dougie’s new approach to explaining his decisions on young players’ futures to the fans, but most importantly, to the players, is preferable to just releasing them with no explanation? 

Ok, I'll bite on your straw man argument.  Why should Dougie tell the fans about his approach to coaching young players who he sees having a future at the club, and what does that have to do with him releasing players in the past who weren't good enough?

[Cet Homme Charmant]

27 minutes ago, DreamOakTree said:

I’ll try one more time to get back on topic:

Do you feel that Dougie’s new approach to explaining his decisions on young players’ futures to the fans, but most importantly, to the players, is preferable to just releasing them with no explanation? 

Because when he releases someone, the reason for it is self-explanatory to everyone, except you obviously. It's because he doesn't think they're good enough to make it.

What other possible explanation are you looking for?

 

[TRVMP]

3 hours ago, ChampTon said:

Being involved in both the youth set-ups of Celtic and Burnley clearly show there's a player in there when discussing Deane. One pass against St.Mirren in a glorified friendly provided more excitement than Reece did in his years at Cappielow. 

If Reece was half as good as he thought he was, he wouldn't of ended up on his current career trajectory - any blame in relation to Morton or Imrie are unfound on his part. Carlo Monti rings a bell.

No, it's a decent heuristic that he was a good youth player but it's not a reliable way of determining Championship quality. Ruben Sammut was a superb youth player but couldn't make the grade at even high non-league level in England. We had that one guy from Spurs who made the bench for a CL game but was out of his depth for us. Sean McGinty was captain of the Manchester United youth team that won a bunch of stuff and never had a chance in hell of their first team.

There are also question marks over guys who make it to the age of 19 or 20 and don't get loan football. They might be, for reasons of physicality or time on the ball, excellent at youth level but will never quite make the jump to the men's game. (But, to be fair, there are other examples, where clubs will keep them in the youth team to win trophies when they are ready for a loan spell.)

The vast, vast majority of excellent youth footballers will never play high-level football, and a decent percentage will drop into non-league or even just recreational football. It is key to remember that. Certainly you'd expect, all else being equal, a guy from Celtic and Burnley to be a better prospect than a guy from Livingston and Brechin (for example) but it's just that, an expectation.

[DreamOakTree]

45 minutes ago, TAFKAC said:

Ok, I'll bite on your straw man argument.  Why should Dougie tell the fans about his approach to coaching young players who he sees having a future at the club, and what does that have to do with him releasing players in the past who weren't good enough?

My gripe at the time was Dougie not giving the players an explanation as to why they were being released. As well as doing that recently, Dougie has taken it on himself to also explain it to the fans.

29 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

Because when he releases someone, the reason for it is self-explanatory to everyone, except you obviously. It's because he doesn't think they're good enough to make it.

What other possible explanation are you looking for?

 

A similar explanation that’s he’s just given to Michael Garrity. 

When young players are released from top clubs they know they will be moving down a level in their next move, and there is normally a variety of reasons for different players leaving. This is usually well documented and the players leave on good terms, and usually find a decent move elsewhere. 
To be released from a mid-table Scottish Championship club, knowing they are moving down a level from there, I feel would need even more of an explanation to help the player deal with it and move on with an idea of what he needs to improve on.

Any jobs I’ve had when I’ve been let go, I’ve always been told the reason why. I’ve then tried to correct these failings in my next job. I’m sure that would apply to people I’m most walks of life, most of which don’t have the spotlight on them of a professional footballer.

If you’re saying that communication on football matters towards fans is pointless, then surely this forum would also be pointless?

 

 

[vikingTON]

14 minutes ago, DreamOakTree said:

Any jobs I’ve had when I’ve been let go, I’ve always been told the reason why. I’ve then tried to correct these failings in my next job. 

So when will you start correcting all the failings in your crock of shit posts on here? 

[Cet Homme Charmant]

42 minutes ago, DreamOakTree said:

A similar explanation that’s he’s just given to Michael Garrity. 

One giant flaw in your argument Sherlock. Garrity hasn't been released.

Dougie is paid to decide who he keeps and who he lets go, and he's under no obligation to justify it to you, me or anyone else, especially if these decisions turn out to be completely vindicated.

[Pedrodelawasp]

1 hour ago, DreamOakTree said:

To be released from a mid-table Scottish Championship club, knowing they are moving down a level from there, I feel would need even more of an explanation to help the player deal with it and move on with an idea of what he needs to improve on.?

 

 

The training ground is the principle place where a player has it explained to them what they need to improve upon. They’ll also be getting feedback through any game time, in the dressing room and so on.

At the point of being told they’ll not be offered a contract they will absolutely know why.

[Jamie_M]

1 hour ago, DreamOakTree said:

My gripe at the time was Dougie not giving the players an explanation as to why they were being released. As well as doing that recently, Dougie has taken it on himself to also explain it to the fans.

Who specifically has been released without explanation?

[TAFKAC]

2 hours ago, DreamOakTree said:

My gripe at the time was Dougie not giving the players an explanation as to why they were being released. As well as doing that recently, Dougie has taken it on himself to also explain it to the fans.

A similar explanation that’s he’s just given to Michael Garrity. 

When young players are released from top clubs they know they will be moving down a level in their next move, and there is normally a variety of reasons for different players leaving. This is usually well documented and the players leave on good terms, and usually find a decent move elsewhere. 
To be released from a mid-table Scottish Championship club, knowing they are moving down a level from there, I feel would need even more of an explanation to help the player deal with it and move on with an idea of what he needs to improve on.

Any jobs I’ve had when I’ve been let go, I’ve always been told the reason why. I’ve then tried to correct these failings in my next job. I’m sure that would apply to people I’m most walks of life, most of which don’t have the spotlight on them of a professional footballer.

If you’re saying that communication on football matters towards fans is pointless, then surely this forum would also be pointless?

 

 

But Garrity hasn't been released.  

I have some experience of how this works - not personally as I never got beyond trials with Killie boys club in the early 80s. But my lad was at Bromley until 16, and has played at step 5 and 6 when at uni.  He had trials at league clubs, but never quite made the cut.  I also coached at a decent youth level in SE London and I have one kid still at a league club and a few still playing at step 2,3 and 4; at one point I had 2 at Chelsea, 2 at Millwall, 1 at Charlton and 1 at Gillingham but they all got dropped at various points, despite one of them being the Chelsea and Polish under 15s captain.  I had a decent relationship with the scouting teams at Millwall and Charlton, but really didn't like the bigger clubs approach to it all.  

Basically league clubs will have one kid in each age group they are focussed on.  The other 15-19 lads in that age group are there as fodder.  Sadly parents all think that their kid is the one.  It becomes horrible at under 16s, especially if the kids are not academically minded or have parents looking to cash in on them.  Lots get released at this point as under 16s becomes under 18s and two year groups need to filter into one.  The amount of kids who stop playing football at 16 is massive and depressing.  

All of that is a long winded way of saying - kids will be told why they are being released and will be given other options including dropping down a few levels or sixth form colleges for the bright kids.  The kids may not listen and deflect, but ultimately it is up to them to make the right decisions.  The lad I coached who is still playing pro went to Arsenal at under 10s.  Was dropped at under 13s, played local youth football until 16 and then got picked up by Colchester after attending an open trial where he was up against loads of kids being dropped by the big clubs.    

None of what happens on the training ground or between manager and players should be communicated to fans, however entitled you may feel yourself to be.

[Greacen2000]

On 1/4/2024 at 1:23 PM, DreamOakTree said:

This was all well documented at the time. They revealed that Dougie had told them they had no future at the club with no explanation given. 
It appears this approach has now been resolved as evidenced by Dougie’s recent clear explanations on his plans for development players.

Ah ok so “issues” = “being notified of their release”

thanks for clearing that up 

[DreamOakTree]

4 hours ago, vikingTON said:

So when will you start correcting all the failings in your crock of shit posts on here? 

That’s what I’m attempting to do now!

It won’t be easy as it’s difficult to get a direct response to any of my posts without more emphasis being put on myself for previous posts, quite understandably. It will take time but I’ll keep trying.

[DreamOakTree]

4 hours ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

One giant flaw in your argument Sherlock. Garrity hasn't been released.

Dougie is paid to decide who he keeps and who he lets go, and he's under no obligation to justify it to you, me or anyone else, especially if these decisions turn out to be completely vindicated.

Dougie’s explanation indicates that Garrity will be released if the penny doesn’t drop, which it doesn’t seem to have happened. So if as seems likely he is released then the reasons will be crystal clear. I feel this is a recent thing from Dougie to clarify situations. I’m a bit baffled that no-one else is seeing this.

I know Dougie doesn’t need to justify his approach towards any player’s part in his plans, but that’s exactly what he’s done here. Don’t you see that?

3 hours ago, Pedrodelawasp said:

The training ground is the principle place where a player has it explained to them what they need to improve upon. They’ll also be getting feedback through any game time, in the dressing room and so on.

At the point of being told they’ll not be offered a contract they will absolutely know why.

Agreed, but it’s only started happening recently. Surely you can acknowledge that!

[DreamOakTree]

3 hours ago, Jamie_M said:

Who specifically has been released without explanation?

Strapp, Lyon and McGregor as documented. I didn’t see hard evidence about others who were referenced on here.

[DreamOakTree]

3 hours ago, TAFKAC said:

But Garrity hasn't been released.  

I have some experience of how this works - not personally as I never got beyond trials with Killie boys club in the early 80s. But my lad was at Bromley until 16, and has played at step 5 and 6 when at uni.  He had trials at league clubs, but never quite made the cut.  I also coached at a decent youth level in SE London and I have one kid still at a league club and a few still playing at step 2,3 and 4; at one point I had 2 at Chelsea, 2 at Millwall, 1 at Charlton and 1 at Gillingham but they all got dropped at various points, despite one of them being the Chelsea and Polish under 15s captain.  I had a decent relationship with the scouting teams at Millwall and Charlton, but really didn't like the bigger clubs approach to it all.  

Basically league clubs will have one kid in each age group they are focussed on.  The other 15-19 lads in that age group are there as fodder.  Sadly parents all think that their kid is the one.  It becomes horrible at under 16s, especially if the kids are not academically minded or have parents looking to cash in on them.  Lots get released at this point as under 16s becomes under 18s and two year groups need to filter into one.  The amount of kids who stop playing football at 16 is massive and depressing.  

All of that is a long winded way of saying - kids will be told why they are being released and will be given other options including dropping down a few levels or sixth form colleges for the bright kids.  The kids may not listen and deflect, but ultimately it is up to them to make the right decisions.  The lad I coached who is still playing pro went to Arsenal at under 10s.  Was dropped at under 13s, played local youth football until 16 and then got picked up by Colchester after attending an open trial where he was up against loads of kids being dropped by the big clubs.    

None of what happens on the training ground or between manager and players should be communicated to fans, however entitled you may feel yourself to be.

Thanks for taking the time to respond with your extensive experience of such events. I’ve heard a lot of those stories but you’ve painted a picture of how widespread it is. 
My point was that the manager should communicate his plans for each player to the player himself, whether keeping or releasing him, which it appears is about to happen in Garrity’s case. 
I fully agree that this doesn’t need to be communicated to fans, however that is exactly what Dougie has done in this instance.

[dunning1874]

11 minutes ago, DreamOakTree said:

Strapp, Lyon and McGregor as documented. I didn’t see hard evidence about others who were referenced on here.

But it's not documented at all. Released players being dissatisfied with the explanations they were given or - whether rightly or wrongly - feeling they weren't treated well doesn't mean Imrie hadn't had a conversation with them about it and punted them without explaining why, it means they didn't like the explanation.

[Jamie_M]

1 hour ago, DreamOakTree said:

Strapp, Lyon and McGregor as documented. I didn’t see hard evidence about others who were referenced on here.

So nobody then. Because there's not a shred of evidence that any of these were 'released without explanation'.

[Cappiecat 1.2]

8 hours ago, Pedrodelawasp said:

The training ground is the principle place where a player has it explained to them what they need to improve upon. They’ll also be getting feedback through any game time, in the dressing room and so on.

At the point of being told they’ll not be offered a contract they will absolutely know why.

 

4 hours ago, DreamOakTree said:

Agreed, but it’s only started happening recently. Surely you can acknowledge that!

Nope, you're in a minority of one.

[Mr.Blue]

Has anyone, mainly DOT  considered that Dougie may decide not to publicly comment on why players have been let go to protect them? If he came out and said 'X' is being released and gave his reasons it may have a negative impact on the players future prospects. Perhaps he's considering their future careers and mental health and wellbeing?

Also I do understand the need for transparency to a certain degree but do we need to know everything? No. In this day and age there is a clamour for everyone to knkw the full picture, every single detail etc as if its an entitlement. There needs to be a level of professionalism and confidentiality at the club or it could turn into a laughing stock which is pretty much what this thread has turned into because of one poster repeatedly going over the same themes.

Edited January 6 by Mr.Blue

[Toby]

Didn’t have much time to do anything other than pepper DreamOakTree with red dots for his nonsense yesterday, but it looks like everyone else has covered any questions I may have had doubts over.

There are a few things that just don’t add up. Imrie stated himself in July as he gave Brandon Diau a trial that, given his own career path, he’s prepared to give anyone who shows a willingness a chance, and if they’re not good enough, then that’s unfortunate and they move on. That just doesn’t align with the persona that DreamOakTree’s painting of him before his supposed change in policy.

There’s also the confidentiality issue. If I were released from employment in any industry, I’d expect a meeting to be held in confidence and if details were to be shared by anyone it would be myself. Surely that’s standard practice? We, as fans may have an interest in why player X has been released, but ultimately it’s between him and the club, or at most shared with his parents and agent.

In Reece Lyon’s case, he still had a year of his contract remaining. In what parallel universe do you release someone from a contract, agree compensation and arrange alternative temporary and then permanent employment without explaining the reasons to move them on? It just doesn’t happen.

Contrary to what I see are DOT’s complaints (I could be wrong, there’s a lot of shite to delve through), the club’s policy on confidentiality regarding released players is entirely correct- it’s none of our business, and if a player wishes to complain to the press about it, that’s their choice, but being a product of the youth system gives nobody a divine right to play for Morton for any extended period. If they don’t progress as everyone had hoped, that’s a shame, but football’s a cut throat industry.

Finally, while Imrie’s the first team manager, he’s got his own bosses. I don’t imagine Morton want to be seen as anything other than responsible employers who look after their staff, in all departments. If Imrie had treated young players in a way that is being implied, surely he would have questions to answer? The guy’s not untouchable, as was emphasised a few weeks ago when some (DOT in particular) were absolutely out of order in their treatment of the manager.

I’m sure he’ll skirt round the subject like he did with the introduction of Davidson and Keay, but eating a bit of humble pie and accepting he’s been in the wrong from day one here would be a far better course of action than continuing to dig.

[Cet Homme Charmant]

I'm slowly coming to the opinion that DOT is a very clever troll. If so, fair play to him as he's made us all out to be gullible twats, but if he isn't and a genuinely believes the shite he spouts on here, then he's more to be pitied than scorned.