The Taylor contract situation strengthens the argument for Celtic hiring a director of football.

Yesterday, I took a deep dive into the situation with Greg Taylor and the potential implications for his future at Celtic. I suggested that the manager might believe there is room for improvement in that position and may have a set view on Taylor’s worth.

If Rogers does not see Taylor as a long-term solution, then a detailed discussion between them is necessary to determine whether Taylor is considered a backup or a crucial part of the team, even if he isn’t guaranteed regular game time.

Just after my piece went live, Rogers addressed this matter in his weekly pre-match press conference. He made it clear that he wants Taylor to remain at the club, values his contributions highly, and hopes that a deal can be finalised soon between the club and Taylor’s representatives.

This statement from Rogers should, in theory, put the speculation to rest. The manager has laid out his position clearly, and it’s important for those at Celtic Park to take this perspective seriously.

I’m not suggesting that there’s deliberate delay or indecision on the club’s part. However, the drawn-out nature of this issue highlights a broader problem and one we’ve talked about here before: the need for a well-structured football department within the club.

The current situation reflects a systemic issue where financial and football decisions are being made by the same group of people. The lines of demarcation don’t exist, and they need to exist. A streamlined structure with a dedicated football department is something we’ve been crying out for here for many years and yet it hasn’t happened yet.

In an ideal world, there would be a clear separation between financial decisions and football operations. A director of football or technical director should be appointed, working within a defined budget to meet the manager’s needs, and only his needs.

If Taylor’s contract extension were within the budget, it would be a simple matter of the boss sitting down with the head of football operations and deciding what leeway to use to find a resolution. Unfortunately, the current setup seems to involve excessive input from those above the manager’s head, and I think that’s why we struggle at times to do things quickly.

Look, this isn’t going to be one of those articles that goes after the board. In terms of the way they’ve handled player contracts in recent years I’m more than satisfied with only that handful of youth players who have decided to move on spoiling our overall success rate.

This isn’t to criticise the current setup or suggest that the club is mishandling matters. Instead, I’m highlighting the benefits of having a dedicated football department and it’s been obvious for years. Everyone at the club would benefit from it.

It should also go without saying that I’m not advocating giving players whatever they demand. While I might have reservations about the specific details of our wage structure, I recognise the necessity of having one. A wage structure should be realistic and reflective of a player’s value to the team. I would be very surprised if Taylor was demanding an excessive amount, and I am not saying the manager should approve whatever he wants without a thorough evaluation.

However, within reasonable limits, a manager and a director of football should be able to agree on a fair deal, working with the player’s agent, without unnecessary delays or second-guessing from executives who aren’t really qualified to evaluate a player’s worth to the team.

This situation with Taylor is emblematic of a larger issue regarding the need for structural changes within the club. It’s not just about Taylor’s contract; it’s about improving how the club operates at an executive level.

The recent summer transfer window highlighted similar issues. I can’t help thinking that if we’d had a football department which operated independently from other areas of the club that the process might have been smoother.

When too many roles overlap, with executives trying to manage both financial and football-specific responsibilities, it can lead to inefficiencies and delays, and you know what? I reckon this is partly why we don’t make headway in other areas where we should.

Celtic’s chief executive already has a substantial workload. Adding football-related decisions to those responsibilities can detract from their primary duties.

This issue is not unique to Celtic; it reflects a broader problem seen in various organisations where executives juggle too many roles. A dedicated football department would alleviate some of this pressure, allowing the chief executive to focus on broader club management while football experts handle player-related matters.

We all think that the club has come up short in certain areas. We’ve all accused our executives of sleeping at the wheel in terms of SFA reform and other non-football related areas where we should be much more aggressive in pushing progressive agendas.

This is the kind of stuff we could devote proper time to if our executives were not also playing Football Manager with the squad.

Like I said, I don’t want this to turn into a big anti board rant or anything like that, or for it to come off like it is. But this is a small part of a much bigger deal and something requiring a much longer article at some stage. It is a reminder that there are things that we’re not doing to the best of our ability, and which we need a greater, more strategic, focus on.