RicoS321

You think if the Norwegian lad had said yes, we wouldn't have employed him? That guy looks like he's going to go to the very top of management. He'll know that, he's not stupid, and he simply doesn't need Aberdeen as a stepping stone, but given we wouldn't have had to go insanely outwith our wage structure was definitely worth asking. Whatever you think of Cormack, he's clearly got ambition - far more than you or I, I expect, given his business success. His ambitions for Aberdeen have been fairly clearly written out, he's very much put his cards on the table with the club's strategy. There seems to be too many Dons fans equating ambition with Dave Cormack spending all his money. I want us to be a club that can run itself on its own income, with Dave Cormack (or another) providing the balancing funding between seasons where we perform poorly or there is unexpected events like covid, plus getting the investment for large scale capital infrastructure. Is that unreasonable? Should we really be employing a manager that we can't fund from the football playing side (ticket/corporate sales etc)? Why should Cormack's ambition be to be AFC's sugar daddy? I don't think the chairman spending his own money is ambitious at all, I think it's the very opposite. Anyone can spend mummy and daddy's money and have a good chance of success, but it's not ambition. Goodwin will be about the middle of our budget, maybe higher, but I don't imagine there are a huge number of managers significantly better willing to come to Aberdeen for <£500k per year. Goodwin is perfectly capable of adapting his style of play if required I'm sure. There's a good reason for not playing possession football at St Mirren. He also cost us £250K, so clearly wasn't that easy to get. If he's happy with the club's strategy, then it's a good appointment.

I have to admit, my first thought when he went off midweek was that was his last game, and perhaps not just for us. A bit like Hartley, we got a good six months, but I think he's been chasing shadows and making mistakes since the turn of the year; more interested in winding people up than beating them. Still able to do it of course, see the Huns game, but not consistently. He looked lost against St Johnstone and we were far better when he went off. I'm concerned that the fans will start to turn against him if he's not up for it under the new manager (like when he downed tools under deila) and he unsettles the rest of the team. I don't like the idea of Goodwin having to get an assistant thrown in by decree on signing, but if they gel then it'll be a good thing. I don't know enough to know whether Brown is a good or bad influence behind the scenes, but he doesn't strike me as the type that would put the team ahead of his own ambitions (that's not a criticism) and allow Goodwin space to assert himself. Ultimately, I don't really know, but I think I'd be happier with him gone.

Good swap deal

Aye, I was in Dons mad back when he was playing and it was fairly regular to suggest Goodwin because we needed someone hard in midfield. Draper was the one in a similar vein that got plenty mentions on here. Two limited footballers who could kick people. I remember Hayes playing in centre mid one time against St Mirren due to injuries and he absolutely roasted Goodwin the entire game, who couldn't catch him to kick him. Hopefully he'll have forgotten about it.

I'd love to see any evidence for this (genuinely, I'm not criticising). There are a hell of a lot of good footballers who made poor managers and a hell of a lot of shite players that made good managers. To the extent that I'd say there is zero link whatsoever. Absolutely none. Neither of us has the data obviously, so it's just speculation. I'd say that success has far more to do with personality (of the manager) and management competence rather than footballing ability. Footballing ability is something that you gain at a far younger age than management skills, I just can't see how it's relevant. A will to win is great, but if you don't have the ability to pass that on to others it can probably be quite frustrating. Lambert strikes me as the type who doesn't have the charisma or intelligence to get a point across that people would listen to. John Collins proved that wanking around showing off yer six pack telling folk that you were the fittest player at Monaco is no substitute for actual management abilities - you just wouldn't take the nasally dickhead seriously. I agree with LA Don that prior experience of winning things would be preferable, but I don't see it as essential. As an average player, Goodwin captained St Mirren to cup success, which is fairly impressive (and was regularly championed on various Dons forums as a "winner" that we should look to sign). He was managed by Danny Lennon that day, who is one of numerous examples of managers who have won something that are not that good at managing football teams. Alan Stubbs, Peter Houston, Tommy Wright too. There's a little luck involved in cup wins in Scotland, with no chance of league success.

Aye, he's certainly the tidier of the two.

Sounds like it could be Goodwin today. He's a good manager. Hope it works out. Should mean we haven't had to compromise on the strategic setup either.

Are you holding down the enter key after every post? Fowler seems to throw his name into the hat for every possible job. It seems strange that nobody outside of Asia has given him an opportunity. I think he'd be better placed in the lower English leagues and working upward from there. Carrick would be a better shout if we hadn't just employed a manager with zero experience. I doubt Cormack would want to take that risk again. To be honest, I've got little desire to sign a big name ex player from down South, there seems to be little evidence that any of them are any good or that there's any link whatsoever between being a good player and manager. I was hoping we'd actually see someone in the frame that we'd never heard of. I'm surprised that there wasn't a name from the US thrown in. I think he'll have made his decision already though and it's likely between Ross and Goodwin.

2-4 now. Still plenty of time.

You youngsters just lack ambition.

I won the argument about sixteen replies ago, as everyone on here bar you can grasp. You haven't provided a single piece of contrary evidence. Great story though.

Fuck it, I'll have one more go. Every single example you're throwing out is not comparable and you seem completely unable to see that. It's just weird. You do realise that signing an arsenal reserve team player in the eighties for well within budget isn't the same as signing a manager being paid £7.5M? That Celtic signing Postecoglu, well within budget, isn't remotely the same thing? Or your other random attempts at comparison. It'd be like a Dundee United fan questioning why they weren't chasing European success because they got to the final in '87. The fact that you state that your not suggesting we do anything financially irresponsible shows that you don't understand what you're proposing. That means that you must think Solskjaer is willing to take a 95% pay cut to join Aberdeen, which is a little bit fucked up. I mean, I love the Dons, but I'm not fucking delusional, it really isn't that great a job. However, if we humour the stupid suggestion for a second and he agrees to join the Dons. After we've checked his hard drive, what do you think the first demand is going to be from the fans? Ye canna sign Ole Gunnar Solskjaer and nae gie him a budget! You then have to either match those demands or hang the guy out to dry. You can't have both, and one is useless without the other. As soon as you go down the Solskjaer route, you're opening the club up to financial disaster. You become the Huns, basically. It's not a great look. If Cormack is asking Solskjaer then he has plans for this club that are disastrous and he's not fit to be chairman. Luckily, he won't be doing that, because he's not am idiot. As I stated in my original post about Nicholas' original suggestion, it's really unhelpful to have these types of ideas without laying out the critical thought process behind it. Imagine we were one day to get fan representation at board level and this was the kind of idiotic shite that was being added? It would utterly ruin us. I'm not a massive fan of Cormack, but it's really unfair on him to have this type of thinking out there. Anything he does in comparison is always going to look shite.

It's fucking brilliant if true. Not just the fact that he's McGhee, but he's also got a six match ban still to serve after the "incident" against us.

We'll, aye, but I'm guessing the club wouldn't have had to give away a bunch of tickets to kids either.

Nobody is cancelling anyone. Steve Clarke is a terrible example, not even close to solskjaer joining Aberdeen as even a rudimentary examination of evidence would point out. Nor Charlie Nicholas, nor George Best. The onus is not on me to come up with reasons why a person wouldn't take a 95% pay cut (or we spend 70% of our turnover on a manager) it's on you. You must surely be able to grasp that? You're the one proposing something extremely far fetched. You're accusing me of narrow mindedness, which is basically gaslighting. It's not narrow mindedness to point out basic arithmetic and critical thinking. You then try and couch the argument more generally as if I'm suggesting all foreign managers are terrible suggestions or that we shouldn't get someone at the outer reaches of our budget, when the argument is very specifically about Solskjaer. The paradox in your reasoning, that you don't seem to have worked out yet, is that if AFC "show ambition" by spending 70% of their turnover on a manager, then the reverse is also true. What sort of ambition would it show from Solskjaer, and why would we want someone so severely lacking in that regard? What would that say about him? The Knutsen guy is clearly ambitious and feels he can do better than us - fair enough. Goodwin is ambitious and wants to make the step up from St Mirren. What if Lewis Ferguson decided to sign a five year extension because he thinks it's an easy life at pittodrie? We'd rightly criticise him and question his strength of character. He doesn't, because he's ambitious. If the criteria is ambition, then why is the onus on the club to show ambition and not the manager it appoints? Why on earth would you want the club to show ambition to appoint someone with zero ambition? Your logic is completely and utterly flawed, but I'm 100% you know this already and you're arguing in bad faith (because you're clearly not stupid).

Incoming at Dundee. If rumours are to be believed. I can't even say it. It's too fucking stupid (it's not solskjaer).

They've been giving tickets to school kids I believe. Don't think it's the pull of Tam Courts' galacticunts.

Yep, but that was the same with McInnes who built his reputation with St Johnstone and then failed in Bristol. We were the Hibs in that scenario and got lucky. I think Goodwin is a better option than Ross, but I'm still not totally certain that Ross won't turn out to be a decent manager. He had a fairly high win percentage at Hibs inclusive of the terrible run of form that ended it. I'm glad Hibs took the hit anyway of course, and hope it continues under Maloney.

Fuck sake, just admit that you're wrong and grow the fuck up. The suggestion of OGS taking a 95% reduction in salary is patently stupid. It's like talking to someone who's trying to convince you that they can talk to the dead. You're not a moron, why the doubling and trebling down and the changing of subject?

Aye, one on his phone, one on laptop/pc I think. He has explained before, he's not trying to back up his own arguments with a second account, don't worry, no shenanigans.

Jesus.

It's stupid to even get into hypotheticals about a guy on 70% of our turnover. We might as well be talking about getting Fergie out of retirement with the "if you don't ask" chat. There is a wider point on how much we should actually pay our manager in relation to our turnover. I'm guessing we'd go up to £500K for the right guy. Rumours were that McInnes was on more than that, but I'd tend not to believe those (and if true, were likely heavily performance based). Beyond that, I'm not convinced we're really getting value for money, and it would be affecting the playing budget. In our position, recruitment is easily as important as the manager as we've seen and so the extra money spent on a manager doesn't add the same value as it might in recruitment. I'm not convinced that upping our manager budget from £500k to £1M would be massively advantageous. I'm guessing a more expensive manager would require a concomitant (traynor) rise in playing budget, which we couldn't sustain. In terms of guys like Knutsen, there is a wider issue. The game is so global these days that he simply doesn't need someone like the dons coming in to offer him a "stepping stone" to England (the holy grail). He's already high profile and will be on the radar of teams down South (or across Europe). If anything, Aberdeen might be a backward step. He'll look at a team like the dons and see an obvious ceiling that doesn't exist in his own country and recognise its not in his best interests. We'd have to offer him a huge wage, which then won't give us good value. I'm guessing he could already command a £1-2M salary at least at a Huddersfield or some pish. Would we really get 3-4 times better value over someone like Goodwin? I think our strategy of addressing the other areas in the club to give the manager (any manager) the best chance of success is a much better way to add value. Recruitment and youth development are far bigger factors than a manager in my opinion. That's not to say a manager isn't important, but the aim should be strong and competent, rather than inspiring, big name or expensive.

Don't be ridiculous, stop doubling down on something so stupid. I've provided you the evidence, and your clearly not stupid, your just defending a crap point. Your situation isn't remotely the same. You're not taking a 95% pay cut for a start. Aberdeen is fantastic if you're an Aberdeen fan from Aberdeen, but nobody on earth thinks that coming to pittodrie to get abused by the Ned shed is some sort of idyllic lifestyle away from the madness of, say, Bournemouth or Everton or wherever else a former Man Utd manager goes next. The problem with these ridiculous shouts for people on 70% of our turnover is that they automatically make the guys within our budget look shite. I've laid out my position several times. Of the managers I know a lot about, Goodwin sticks out as the best in my opinion. Of the managers I know nothing about, the guy Knutsen seems to be the stand out. I do expect data Dave to have enquired about both of these managers because if we're on a message board having heard of him, then a club looking for a manager will have heard of him. I'm absolutely certain (especially as it hasn't been that long since we last looked) there are lots of other managers out there that the club will have thought about that I haven't even heard of. I've stated already that being "inspired" by a manager isn't a requirement for me. Just as I wasn't inspired by signing Scott Brown, and haven't been inspired by any signing we've made since football turned into money ball. You seem to be conflating inspiring with "unheard of" or "different", but for me that's just intriguing. Skovdahl was intriguing, not inspiring. Besuijen, Ramirez were intriguing, not inspiring, but neither so far better than obvious good, solid signings like Shinnie or McLean. The moment we move into inspiring manager choices is the moment our club is bought by a Saudi billionaire and ruined beyond imagination.

Because it's fucking stupid. The value added by having a manager taking a 95% pay cut is zero. There'd have to be something very wrong with the guy if he were to accept it, like some serious pending Prince Andrew shit. Or, for example, Mason Greenwood - that's the equivalent in player terms. If our chairman has his head in the clouds with nonsense like that then he's not doing his job, and that is harmful.

Just back, that was interesting. Disagree with you all on Montgomery, that was his best game for us tonight, which obviously is saying nothing. He was, however, miles better than McKenzie unfortunately. Perhaps difficult to see how bad McKenzie was on the telly, but he was literally out of position the entire half. He had no idea where he was supposed to stand, with Middleton just wandering away from him regularly, which didn't happen in the second half. It reminded me of Hernandez' debut, he had to be removed before he gave away a goal. Hopefully it's just that he wasn't fit, because to be worse than Montgomery is fairly special. The injuries did us a favour tonight, the midfield just weren't at it in the first half. It was strange, Barron's movement was excellent but it was almost like Ferguson and Brown were confused by it. They didn't seem to know where to run without getting in his way. The number of times our fullbacks had the ball with nobody to pass to was embarrassing. Brown moving to centre half was an improvement, but Brown going off was even better as he just wasn't up for it at all. Ferguson then came on to a game and we improved. A few folk round me were disappointed with Jet coming on, but it wasn't physically possible to bring on a worse player than Kennedy, so it was an automatic improvement. Ramirez, who had a terrible game, unlucky not to win it. I'm not sure what to make of it. That first half was the worst I've seen us in a long time, a genuine concern. If we can be that bad, relegation isn't out of the question. We desperately need Considine back to get Bates onto his correct foot as he's an easy target. I'd give Hayes the left back position for the rest of the season and forget the other two, it's too risky. Besuijen did enough to start at the weekend. Perhaps we can ask politely for Niall McGinn back to replace Kennedy.