The idea of "trial periods" seems such an appealing one. They are often seen as such by chairmen, boards and fans initially: "Give him a try and see what happens". The fans' enthusiasm usually quickly fades as the drawbacks emerge, because its hardly ever as simple as that. Do they really work?

The reason chairmen and boards like them is that they appear to be a soft option, absolving them of decision making and responsibility. It seems like a good way of keeping the fans off their backs, because of course these situations only occur when a crisis when a manager has been "lost", for whatever reason. However decision making is what chairmen and boards should be about; if they aren't making the hard choices what are they there for?

Why am I arguing against trial periods? First of all: it puts ridiculous pressures on the person on trial, whilst tying his hands to make even medium term decisions that are part and parcel of the job he is supposed to be doing. Others are also left unsure how long-term the position of the person they are answering to actually is. There is confusion, uncertainty, and a lack of clarity over the relationships between all the parties concerned.

If the "trial" goes well and the person is appointed its only X partially wasted weeks; but just as likely is that with the pressures involved the triallist hasn't been able to do justice to himself; and the club, in that position because of a crisis anyway, continues to lurch along in disarray.

So if the "trial" period is deemed not to have gone well or the result has been ambiguous, what then? A really difficult situation arises. Is the trialist dumped? Then one has to start again (with those X weeks completely wasted) from the position one was previously at; and any position within the establishment for the "failure" probably becomes completely untenable. Or do you persevere regardless and make the appointment anyway, because it seems inevitable and other options have become less appealing as time has now passed by? If so why was there a trial period in the first place? Or is the trial period extended in the hope that things improve? This last is the worst of all options, compounding the initial mistake of going for a trial at all.

But what if you appoint on a long(er) contract without this "probationary" period and get a dud? Well, you win some, you lose some. That's what chairmen and boards are for: to back their judgement, take decisions, and stand or fall by them. Get it wrong and they have to put their hands in their pockets and buy out the contract, a.k.a. sack the manager! If they don't like the heat get out of the kitchen.

This is all very pertinent to the situation at Yeovil Town because we are, as everyone knows, coming to the end of just such a trial period. And what has it shown? Whatever one wants it to show! If one wants Steve Thompson in charge one points to a good performance against League opposition and a win away against the Conference leaders and mentions the difficulties of being in such a false position whilst on trial. Those who don't want him point to results like Kidderminster and Hednesford. Has anything been proved? Colin Lippiatt lost his first five games whilst in a similar position.

And what is our board doing? Engaging in spineless indecision that looks like its going to be made dramatically worse, if rumours are to be believed. Weeks wasted already! If they think Steve Thompson is the man get on and appoint him. If they have doubts then they shouldn't have put him in the frame in the first place; it should have been a simple caretaker role only whilst they recruited a man they believed in. It now seems like they might extend this "trial" to the end of the season. Absolute madness: months of uncertainty instead of weeks; a part-time position in every way when the claim was a full-time manager was "essential".

Grasp the nettle John Fry and Co. If you think Thommo's good enough give him a 2002 contract (two and a half seasons) minimum so there's a realistic chance of a full-time position with opportunities to build and develop his own team. If you don't think he's good enough for that then he's not good enough for six months either - unless we are satisfied with another season slipping by. Appoint someone permanently and appoint now; its what you are all on the board for.