I see the Billy Gilmour stuff has surfaced again. Suggestions that he would be suited to Celtic.
Who exactly comes up with some of this?
It’s a terrible idea, with the only redeeming feature of it that it might send his mother careening over the age of sanity.
Her notoriously bigoted statements to the media about not wanting to touch the green bit of the Norwich scarf when he went there on loan were amongst the most cringy ever reported.
Gilmour has a spark of something about him, but that he’s yet to settle at one club and grow into the team shows that it’s only a spark.
He’s done well to even play for EPL clubs at this stage in his career, and that should not be overlooked, but that he’s bounced around three of them now shows you he’s nowhere near to being the footballer all the hype about him suggests.
A move back to Scotland would not represent triumphant progress in his career but, instead, something of a serious reversal.
It wouldn’t be good for his career prospects … or those of our club.
As a club, we’re done helping develop other people’s footballers. The players we’ve signed on loan we brought here with an option to buy. One – Moritz Jenz – we decided not to bother with. The others have been a huge success.
Bringing Gilmour to Celtic would not progress us, or him.
We’re too good for this sort of thing now, and he wouldn’t get in our team ahead of our midfield starters. Development continues to be an ongoing process with our own guys, even those not playing every week.
The ones who are here already and who deserve that chance – Iwata and Turnbull – would be the priority over giving games to some loanee who is just going to go back to his club.
We are a little more forward thinking than that.
I don’t care that he played for the Ibrox club, or that his mother is a raging Follow Follower.
Whatever issues there are in that family are for them to sort out.
I’m concerned about Celtic, and what is best for us and this would not remotely fall into that category.