Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

Within his answers he pointed that there were of course two positions vacant, as the departure of Archie Knox along with Craig Brown meant they were also seeking a new assistant manager.

This of course is usually the case when a managerial vacancy becomes available, but it is unusual to have the two roles defined separately as was done in this interview because it is taken for granted that a new manager will choose his own right hand man.

For many reasons this is probably the most sensible approach as there should then be the necessary trust and chemistry between a boss and his assistant that makes them work as a partnership.

However, in an era where financial constraints are becoming ever-greater could it be that there will be more scenarios whereby a club can only afford to pay compensation for a termination of employment to a manager only, and therefore require the new incumbent to accept inheriting a backroom team?

Furthermore, could it be that amidst all the talk of revolution in the game that clubs will choose to interview candidates separately and consequently trust their own judgement in terms of selecting their management team?

I believe that the current economic climate may see more examples of the first possibility, and as much it would not be a manager's preferred choice of assistant, the need for managers to return to the game would see them accept the situation and be keen to make the best of it.

With regards to the second scenario, it is more unlikely although it could be that a club appoints a manager with the condition that part of his coaching staff is made up from an individual who has spent many years at the club as a player and/or coach and is thought to have a great understanding of the club as a whole.

Such a decision would almost echo other businesses where by a senior appointment may require outside application but the supporting roles are capable of and best suited to being filled from within the company.

Of course, all this deliberation over assistants is only appropriate if you believe that they have an important role within a club.

My own opinion would be that they most certainly do; the days of some coaches only being there to hand out bibs and lay out cones are in the past and indeed most assistants now take as much of training as the manager and in some cases the vast majority of sessions.

I am be very fortunate to have worked under some very good assistant managers with Brian Rice at Falkirk being exceptional in terms of training routines and his ability to keep them interesting and of a high tempo.

At St Mirren Andy Millen combined his skills as a coach with an ability to remain enthusiastic and upbeat at all times and was able to relate to and communicate with players even through bad form or spells out of the side.

The two coaches I have mentioned have never been managers in their own right and whether they would like to tackle this more senior role would be for them to disclose.

It does appear however that there are those in the game who are either better suited to being assistants or simply prefer such a role.

In some cases it is only when they opt to test themselves as a manager that they realise that they are more comfortable in the increasingly significant and skilled role of an assistant-and to wearing the club training gear rather than the sharp suit in the dugout.

Finally, can I take the opportunity to wish those who take the time to follow my blog a very Merry Christmas.