but who is now at the club, senior enough, to know enough to bring in the right football man.
Exactly, Dude. That's the catch 22 problem. Dalglish is the only one steeped in football, played under Paisley, successful player manager (a monstrous feat in itself), championship winning manager with two seperate clubs, that has enough football experience and knowledge and is intelligent enough as a human being to stand any chance of pulling off the required decisions. He should be a central figure in the re-shaping of the club as chief advisor to the new owners. Parry, despite his limitations and monumental error with the Toxics, is still knowledgable enough through his work setting up the Premier League and has moved in the right football administration circles to be able to advise on board member requirements and the required administrative structure of a football club.
Why Commoli, and why ask the General Manager of a Baseball team for advice on roles and structures, and specific personnel to fill them, within a football club?
I'd have no problem, in fact I like the idea of a football board that would make the footballing decisions, whilst the board (in a more traditional sense) ran the business/financial side. But where does a DOF's responsibilities start and a manager's end? The football board would decide the broad outline of the direction the club follows and the manager instigates it, fills in and carries out the details. It also means there are checks and balances against poor transfer decisions or least a reduction in the chance of mistakes.
It seems as though Commoli will decide the football ethos but if that ethos is wrong, though correctly actioned by the manager, because it's flawed therefore doesn't work, who is accountable and pays with his job, the manager or Commoli?