RicoS321

Probably just brown's agent trying to get a better offer from the Tims. Hopefully.

The reasons I stated. Every manager fails at some point, as do the majority of players. It doesn't turn them into bad managers. Rooney was excellent for us despite failing previously, and a hundred others. McInnes failed at Bristol but was successful when he came here, and will probably be successful elsewhere too. Often it just needs the right fit and a new lease of life and a player or manager will start firing again.

Aye, you're probably right. I was really meaning the last couple of seasons and I thought they'd hit over 50% rate, which is a success in my book, but I'm probably wrong on that. That's the thing, recruitment really isn't easy and expecting anything more than three in every five signings to be successful is unfair. Over the last three seasons our success rate was below that, but also we had a number of players who were of almost zero use that negatively impacted our youth player opportunities. A manager like Neil would stand a better chance of getting that ratio of failed signings down, but I think we also need to identify the weaknesses in our backroom that led to poor signing strategy.

Would any of them be worth the price though? Are they actually good managers? Or just "big names"? I wouldn't be enamoured with any of them. The manager you employ has to be relevant to the league and budget within which you operate. One of the reasons that Gerrard has managed to finally get success at the hun is because it was a very good fit for him. He could get players at the lower-mid end of the Liverpool cast-off pool whom he knew were good players. With a decent knowledge of the game down south at the hun level of salary, and an extremely competent staff behind him (especially in recruitment), they've seen a lot less failures in the transfer market. If he'd come to Aberdeen, for example, he would have struggled to do that because we'd never be affording Kent or Aribo (let alone Defoe) and he wouldn't have had the recruitment staff to mitigate his lack of knowledge in our market. From that perspective, Neil is a far better fit than any of the above. He'll know good Championship players within our budget, he's got a good understanding of the game in Scotland. He's had succesful periods as a manager in Scotland and England. What would be the point in Van Bommel if he's only got the budget for Calvin Zola? What would he bring other than a cheap thrill to the fans for a few months until he's inevitably found out? What makes Mark Hughes a good manager?

Exactly. That's why I said "sounds like something the Tims would write". I think it's pathetic that the BBC places a prominent video of Brown on their website without a mention of the Logan incident, I wouldn't have noticed it so thanks for mentioning it (I've sent in my complaint, I suggest others do too). It's gaslighting Logan, there's no other word for it. Would they put an video up talking about Martindale's involvement in rehabilitating prisoners without mention of his own prior crimes? Could you imagine a video of Gallagher putting his arm around an assault victim making the BBC without associated context? Maybe autographing their baseball bat? It's pathetic. The reason it's there, however, isn't because it's a footballer supporting another, it's because they want to pathetically elevate the old firm rivalry to fairytale like status. It's about showing the brave captain of one cheek reaching across the divide - right before the most important fixture in world football - to hold out the hand of reconciliation to their opponent. It's the BBC's deferential elevation to WW1 on Christmas Day status - that's how important this fixture is. It's not about racism at all for them, this childish rivalry is more important.

I didn't suggest that McLennan was a great player, just that given limited instructions he can do a job, which he proved earlier in the season with a run at right wing back. In the same way as foster was able to do a job for both us and the Huns despite being average. Put another way, McLennan won't be an excuse for not finishing third next season. I also didn't suggest that players weren't replaceable. In fact, I think you've missed my entire point, which is that with a few additions our squad is good enough to finish third. It's largely similar to most of the squads McInnes has had in his time, whereby as soon as we lose two or three to injury, the remains fall way short. I don't think the current team are any worse than the nwakali pish that lost to Motherwell at Hampden, or the team that lost to championship hibees and went eight games without a win. It's unrealistic on our budget to expect us to not have guys like McLennan, Hayes and Kennedy forming part of the squad, they're just part of the turnover of players. On any given day, if our scouts were asked to replace McLennan on his wages we'd probably have a 40% chance of getting someone better (our scouts, not you or I) based on our current success rate. Over time, these guys will be replaced and we'll get a few more Josh parkers on the way. I'm not sure about McRorie. He's got the attitude of a captain, but he's been gash since covid. It's like watching flood at times. His final ball, his reading of the game yesterday was all over the shop. I'd play him at the back before making him captain. Ferguson should be forced to stay and play to the level we know he's capable of. A good manager would get far more out of him in my opinion. McInnes did a fairly good job with getting guys like Ferguson and Campbell integrated into the first team, but you then start to get the performances we saw from both Jack and McLean, whereby they played within themselves for a long time - the cautious approach. Ferguson has another gear at least and I think we could get proper money for him with the right direction. Although, if we got a good offer now, I'd probably agree with you!

But add three players to that, as we saw with Watkins and Wright earlier in the season then the best attributes of the others can be brought out. McLennan just needs better management, so does Hayes. Hayes' best period for us was when he was told to run at the byline and kick the ball square into the box. McLennan could execute those simple instructions all day long and his crosses are actually not too bad (see his tee up for Campbell yesterday). McInnes' problem was always that he tried to get limited players to do far too much (see Kennedy). It's where Clarke absolutely excelled at killie, getting the best out of guys like Stewart by giving them a set of very simple instructions and responsibilities - none of the changing wing to wing and through the middle nonsense that McInnes insisted on. McLennan, Hayes and even Kennedy have particular attributes that a good manager could get a lot out of, and there are plenty of worse players in the SPFL. They shouldn't be a hindrance to finishing third, and one or two additions could bring out a bit more in then too. I don't think they're the long term answer necessarily, but they're more than workable for a couple of windows. With decent earners like Devlin, Logan, McGinn and so on moving on at the end of the season, a new manager should be reasonably happy with the base he's been given. I'd like to see us move McRorie into defence for next season and get a new midfielder in to compliment Ferguson and Campbell. A number 10 to replace Kamberi and a number 9 and a wide player. Youth making up the rest until we get more of an idea what's required and leave a chunk of budget for January.

Yes and no. We've still got some decent players. Just another case of bad signings catching up with us. We have to look beyond the manager for those failings, our recruitment more generally has been poor and changing manager won't solve that. We've known for years that McInnes' recruitment was awful, it didn't just happen overnight, the foundations should have been laid by now for a strong recruitment team who could help. It's completely unacceptable for a club to watch someone sign miles storey and then say "we thought he was doing okay". That said, we're probably only a couple of players away from having a first eleven that could finish third. For example, if Hornby could prove himself alongside Kamberi then we'd likely be fine with Hayes and McLennan on the wings. Sort out the striker role in the summer and we're probably okay in terms of first eleven. You then just need to clear out the fillers that haven't worked like McGeouch, Kennedy, Devlin etc. and you're probably in a place where you can supplement with two or three good players to challenge the first team and have an actual squad. Basically, we can sort most of our issues in one window if signings are good, but two windows should allow us to replace further and there's no reason why we can't be hitting 70 points next season. That should be our aim.

Why should we have been in second place? That's ludicrous. Celtic are on 68 points with six games to go. They'll probably hit ~80 points, 4 points greater than any other team outside the scum has ever achieved. If you expect us to have done better than that this season then you're expectations are unrealistic. Our budget doesn't allow for 80 points in a season, it's that simple. Our budget is what we can afford based on our revenues. Either you're happy for us to go into administration, or you're asking Cormack to be our sugar daddy. Which is it?

I don't think he posts on here.

That's not really redeeming himself, he lost us the game! I'm only joking, he had a decent game otherwise and it looked like he lost his concentration for a second when he let Fuchs keep the ball in play. The sort of error you expect from a young player on their debut. Unlucky. I'm guessing the Hoban sub was as much an opportunity to give Ramsay a run out as anything else. A signal to the senior players.

That's not true. I remember Tim English being very pro Logan and calling out the Tims response. Everyone believed Logan. It was much less of a news story of course.

Fucking disgraceful, get McInnes back. A solid 0-0 opportunity missed there. All a bit "I've been watching the premiership" for my liking. Triple sub bollocks and the ultra cool "playing it out from the back" on a fucking tattie field. It's the managerial equivalent of the latest social media viral trend. Taylor and Considine decent. Hoban wasted as a fullback and McRorie fucking turgid. McKenzie was doing okay until the goal where he was completely at fault. Not seeing the ball out was poor, but then just letting his man wonder away from him was criminal. Edit: Ferguson terrible too, optimised by the play at the end when Hendry was walking out with the ball looking for a pass. Instead of making the simple run into space giving Hendry an easy pass and taking responsibility, he hangs back leaving Hendry - who is gash - with an impossible pass. Blatant dive for his booking too, the only thing the ref did right.

Fit's that in steens? Good to see him getting a chance. Back four by the looks of it.

I think he's a good player, but I doubt a managerless dons are actually looking at him. Did he not just trigger a year's extension on his contract too? If we're paying money for him, I'd rather we looked elsewhere to someone with a resale value.

Regardless of whether it's used as a reason for accepting the best of the rest or not, the best manager in the history of fitba has said it, and I don't believe he's just saying it to stick up for McInnes, he genuinely believes it. It should be taken extremely seriously. Thirty six years don't lie. I think you're right about the cup winning thing. Similarly if we were finishing mid table like under McGhee and Brown then our focus would be elsewhere. Is it enough to say that we want to win a couple of cups every decade, or do we need to be saying that we want to play in a league where it is possible for us to win it? If Ferguson doesn't believe he could win it, then it's as good as unwinnable.

The greatest manager ever saying that the gap between us and the scum is unbridgeable in the times today. It's the sort of thing that the BBC should be picking up on and discussing how things can be changed to bridge that gap. They'll be discussing the best method to get scum colts into the championship instead. If Fergie believes the gap is unbridgeable then hopefully he's reiterated this to Cormack who will keep this in mind when interviewing for a replacement, and he's devising a plan to act to reduce that gap.

Christ, that's like something the Tims would produce.

Recipe for infection.

Anything less than a 3 goal win is unacceptable and I'll be questioning Cormack's decision to sack McInnes. Robson to register himself for the game, come on and score directly from a corner to win it.

Does it not get trotted out before every scum fixture as a way to keep others in their place? Usually it gets dangled with the reward that other big teams like Aberdeen and killie can join in too, as if that makes it better.

None of us know, that's the point. As a fan, though, would you be happy to have some millionaire pumping money into the club to fund its day to day running? There's a massive difference between capital spending on infrastructure than spending, say, 70-80% of income on wages. Would you be happy for us to be run way out-with our means in order to "win in Glasgow". The sort of thing the Huns have done since inception.

The question would have to be why they haven't done that in the last four years? We've also got to ask ourselves as fans if we want our club's running costs to massively exceed our income (I wouldn't). With millions of investment, McInnes would undoubtedly have won more games in Glasgow (that strange benchmark again), but we would have seen very little return on that beyond winning a few additional games (maybe a cup, who knows). With the advent of the shitey Europa extension, we may see income levels increase to the point that we can sustainably inject a million per season into the football side of things, but otherwise I get the impression that - correctly - Cormack won't be launching millions of unsustainable funds into our club.

It wasn't clear, should they just go to Glasgow to win, or actually win in Glasgow? There's a big difference. Would we've happy enough with positive performances without the results? Believing you can win doesn't make it so, and I always feel that trite phrases such as "you've got to win in Glasgow" don't really add anything. Unless Cormack is going to back the manager significantly then he's not going to get his wish. We're good enough to beat both the scum in their own backyard on our day, but being on our day requires a lot of luck too. For example, I think our good team from earlier in the season would have had a chance against both the scum with the added belief (or let's say too much caution) that was never really there under McInnes. However, with two or three injuries to our better players we will always struggle, regardless of "belief". That is, unless, we can get a squad together where the replacements are very strong. That requires Cormack to put his money where his mouth is, and is what happened when Ferguson was manager.

It's quite obvious that it's a ruse to fool the opposition. When you've got big Andy in your squad, there's really no competition for the striker role.