RicoS321

You might want to advise Celtic on the old security. It seems they've let Lennon out again.

Shit the fucking bus, this has to be the best meltdown ever. It's got everything. Gaslighting, denial, lying. Has Steve Bannon joined the Celtic PR team? Fuck me, this very much cheered me up. Lennon minkdown

I think he'd be far better suited to that role. However, I don't think it needs a football person, but more an analytical and managerial person (that might be McInnes of course, that'd be up to Cormack). I mean, I'm guessing that role is what Duncan Fraser does in theory anyway? The managerial role has such a huge remit, it is something that should be two positions. One that sets and oversees the club strategy, in charge of recruitment department, sports science, youth development (and progression to the first team) etc and one that is in charge of first team operations. In theory, the next McInnes shouldn't be any more important to us than the head of recruitment in terms of the organisational layout as it were. Ultimately, we can then hold our recruitment guys responsible when that side of the business goes tits up, and the youth team coach gets ditched if we're failing to present players to the first team coach. Maybe it already happens that way, fuck knows.

The club either has a good scouting department or it doesn't. That should transcend the manager in my opinion. I don't want a manager coming in, let's say from England, and signing a bunch of guys that he knows are good players because he's just seen them in his last job and then in 18 months time they run out of ideas. It's not just at Aberdeen that happens, it's apparent throughout the league and dons fans will often comment on how some managers have great success, ignoring the fact that they're new in their job. McInnes is a full time manager of AFC, he can't be away scouting other options. His bread and butter are players in the SPFL (which he has produced some absolutely shocking players from), or players who have recently left the SPFL and aren't getting the minutes down South. When we stray from that, it's clear to me that we're not in a position to assist a new manager with a decent background scouting team, so I would concentrate on sorting that in the next six months. It's not fair to expect McInnes to be scouting players, nor a new manager. In the interim, I'd restrict McInnes to short term signings or low-risk proven SPFL players that may have a future sell on value (Alan Campbell etc). If it were me, I'd be reviewing McInnes' position in the summer based on our position in the league and with no signings coming in this month, he won't be making any new signings anyway unless he's here for another year. In the summer, if we haven't already (I think we have), we begin to move the scouting and recruitment away from McInnes as part of the succession planning effort. When a new manager comes in, we allow them to put forward players in the league(s) in which they have recently managed, in the same way as McInnes could put forward SPFL players, for further scouting and recruitment. It's not the role of the manager to be touting players he once played against in a pre-season friendly 6 years ago, or a player he saw on channel 5 highlights from English division 8. We need some consistency and intelligence in the scouting process, not managers phoning their mates.

If it was in Dave Cormack's business, the cost of sacking would be significantly less. However, it ignores the fact that incompetence is tolerated and rewarded in most businesses for a long time. I've worked with some fairly rank managers over the years who avoided the sack by not monumentally fucking something up (until they did, at which point they were sacked). It happens a lot, quite rightly people respect other humans and don't generally want to sack people on a whim. As I see it, the decision for Cormack is a relatively simple one. He'll take the emotion out of it and look at McInnes' previous seasons and his ability to grind out points and see that the risk of 5th isn't huge under McInnes. Especially as Livingston are facing quite a challenging month or two of fixtures. He'll build up a weight of evidence first before acting, which is what you really want from the board - you definitely don't want them acting as a fan would. He'll look at value for money and accept that he's not currently getting that, but a pay off would provide even less value. I think he'll also look at expectations from a new manager, budget available to a new manager and current squad limitations. Again, it goes back to succession planning. Unless we're giving the new manager a budget and scope to make changes in this window, then you're asking a lot to do significantly better than McInnes with the available squad. The risk of finishing fifth with a new manager would likely be greater than with McInnes. It would be a terrible set of conditions to begin a new job in. Whether we like it or not - objectively - McInnes has set a fairly high standard as dons manager and will not be easy to follow. The consistency of results and points return will be very difficult to match and better. His results put him in the top 3 or 4 dons managers of all time, regardless of whether we think the entertainment has been there. There are areas that I think we can all see that can be improved, but that doesn't mean they are easy to improve and it doesn't mean they are easy to improve without affecting other parameters. The evidence we have is that the people at the club aren't capable of taking some of the failures (recruitment) from McInnes and turning them into successes, and that doesn't bode well for a new manager. I think that if, as fans, we're not willing to accept that McInnes has done a good job in many, many aspects of the role then we pave the way to another McGhee. Succession planning should be about building on what we have, not the constant ripping up and starting again that has happened every time we have a new manager. We shouldn't be looking at a overhaul of the post-Calderwood variety, we should be seeing an opportunity to identify the strong coaching, fitness (I don't mean injury free, I mean fitness levels), professionalism, hard working, diligent aspects of McInnes' tenure and adding the sustainable recruitment, flair, determination and use of subs that is missing. Our complete failure to understand the recruitment side in the signing of Hernandez doesn't bode well in that regard, I don't believe the club is ready for change and it would incredibly unfair on any new manager to take them in at this point.

Surely that'll be rescinded? A serious case of "grown man falls over".

Three years ago? Now that would have been harsh. Thanks for the second place, Derek. I sort of agree with your post, but I don't think we can pin this one on McInnes. The club was very clearly the instigator in the crime against fitba that was Hernandez, and it almost appeared like we got Kennedy to keep McInnes happy. We can only imagine what would have happened if we'd been allowed to spend half that ridiculous fee on an actual striker and opting for someone like O'Donnell on a pre contract or waited until the following summer to sign a right back. There were fairly obvious targets like nisbet out there at the time we were dicking about on a Venezuelan. The above is the biggest concern for me, we've seen what happens when the club play at soldiers with the Atlanta crew. We're nowhere near where we should be in terms of replacing McInnes, and the Hernandez pish showed that. We can't be going down the route of another manager with complete control over every area, we need continuity and strategy in the main departments. Otherwise the next manager comes in, replaces all the backroom staff and after their 18-24months of signing guys they know because they've seen them recently, recruitment tails off, everything else goes stale and we're left starting again, again.

McInnes has been extremely good at maximising our points return, it's one thing we can trust him to do. We don't need ultimatums souring relationships and making people down tools. If McInnes doesn't finish third then the board are well within reason to act in the summer, it doesn't need a warning. Either way, they'd have to pay out a final year. To be honest, we all know the situation, there's very little point in discussing it. The board would be a little bit mental to pay off McInnes at this stage and even including the county game would be a harsh decision. He's easily got until the summer, and that's a reasonable position to take by any objective measure. He's yet to have a sustained period of bad results in his dons career and until he does there's little point in discussing. I'm just hopeful that the board are succession planning now and ready to move in the summer, or next summer if he finishes third this season.

Yep. Fucking awful. I'd argue that McRorie was the worst of the two. He's been poor since getting covid. After going 3-1 down, there was a moment Ferguson came deep to get the ball, McRorie came tanking deep alongside him instead of taking it up the pitch. I know the idea is that the wide players go forward, but at two down in 85 minutes you have to be intelligent enough to make better runs. He spent a lot of today hiding, whereas Ferguson was just pish at passing and crossing (and what the fuck is with putting him on free kicks and corners?). The game was lost when Hayes went off. We could, and should have comfortably scored two or three today with the chances we had but Main and Cosgrove were rank and Anderson didn't touch the ball when he came on. Luckily it's an absolute rarity that we're that shite at the back.

Ferguson's had a great season. Offered a lot more. Been poor today. He's a very good midfielder that someone will pay cash for. Some honking defending though, really struggling with the pitch. Main was utterly gash but came into it in the last ten as if he'd been cattle prodded. Hayes and Kennedy actually playing on the correct sides has begun to turn it round, fuck knows why McInnes dicks about with the opposite (Kennedy allowed the cross for the second and Hayes left his man for Hoban incorrectly). No reason we can't go on and win it now and would accept the half hour of awful play.

We don't own them though. Jack was always wanting a move, as was Shinnie. Both were worth having in their final year. Ultimately you can't force a player to choose one team over another, and nor should you. In Wright's case, he's either being very badly advised or the dons are forcing the issue (I expect the latter). Six months good performance in the dons team and he has a wealth of options on a free. There simply isn't the need to choose now. Use the Hun interest to drum up interest down South where they might not have been as aware of him. Then take the time to choose your best career path. I think Jack could have easily been playing at the level McLean has reached, and there's no reason Wright couldn't if he fulfills his potential. A move to the Huns won't likely lead to a further move down South, but a move down South could see him step up to the big leagues eventually. The only thing I'm wondering is if he thinks he has a chance of a Scotland call up for the Euros. It would be a once in a lifetime opportunity I suppose and we're missing that type of player with only Christie capable of doing that connection between midfield and attack. He'd certainly be in with a shout if he performs for the Hun. Overall, I don't think it's that good a move for him.

Seems reasonable. You have to promise to put the saved cash into escrow and hand over to the club when Wright signs for Fleetwood town instead of the Huns though.

I'm not sure you're really providing a cure there. The issue isn't with the twenty three year old loon, it's the adults running the club. That said, I don't think the Huns have acted incorrectly here, and you have provided zero evidence to suggest otherwise. Even if they had, we'd be extremely hypocritical to complain as it's an approach that we'd happily use ourselves. The notion that the Huns are predating all our players is ridiculous, they're a competitive fitba organisation, if the Huns weren't after our good players then someone else would be. I'm pretty certain you'll have been adamant that Shinnie was joining them too. It's the nature of all players in the final year of their contract.

Looking forward to this one, think we'll give them a doing. Not sure about the lineup, expect McInnes will play the same one touted for the Livingston game which I think will be very stuffy with three in midfield. I'd go: --------------------Wright-------------------- Wright---Wright---Wright---Wright Wright---Wright---Wright---Wright --------------Main-----Wright------------- I think it would be a shame to drop Main given his blistering form.

What was the lesson regarding Jack? That he played very well for us in his remaining games, especially the cup final? Given the money to be made from Europe next season, I doubt the boards of Aberdeen and Hibs will see third place as a write off.

So would I, but we know he'd return here and sit on the bench when he could be getting 90 minutes every week. Because that's the other part of the Wright situation we're forgetting. McInnes had him sitting on our bench every week for at least six months when he should have been loaned out. Despite his injuries, we showed zero faith in his ability and made a total cunt of his development. Ross is better where he is, as McInnes will change shape rather than play him and he'll be about fourth choice here.

We've already agreed a fee with the Hun for McRorie. We will be due a development fee for Wright, if he leaves in this window we'd expect a little bit more. Maybe £500k? There's no reason for the Hun to sign him in this window though, so they have the upper hand. A pre contract would put us in a very awkward position. Wright has not declared himself anything, he has not signed a contract with us. The Hun thing seems to stem from them wanting him and us trying to get him out in this window to maximise return. We seem to be the ones pushing the Hun angle, probably as it suits our situation with regard to the fee already agreed for McRorie. I have a feeling that Wright would prefer to stay at AFC for the rest of the season and put himself in the window down South.

Ethan Ross would be the ideal one, but he's getting a lot of good game time at Raith just now, the last thing we want is him being dragged back here to sit on our bench so that McInnes can play Campbell, Ferguson and McRorie and Main and Cosgrove up front. With McLennan back soon (I think), I'd prefer we went with what we have. Thing is though, there's a long game here for McInnes. If he accepts any cuts to his wage budget now, he'll have to maintain that. If he gets Stewart (or some other Hun) in to replace Wright then it maintains that wage structure.

I get the impression that the club want Wright gone so they can either get a fee or not have to pay for McRorie. If that means having to take Stewart for six months they'll do it. Laziness would suggest that McInnes is getting an option too, I'm wondering if he's been told that he would get no budget for a replacement if Wright moved on and the swap deal is the only way he'll see another body in the door. A case of Stewart being better than nothing. I'd rather have nothing of course.

Good stuff. Likes his hillwalking and the like I believe and loves Scotland. We should probably tell him to fuck off back to his own country because brexit.

Show us your evidence. I have evidence that Hoban doesn't want to be here when his contract expires. Will he be relegated to the youths? I have evidence Hedges is looking to move on to a bigger club after the dons. Quarantine? I've heard Logan and McGinn might not be getting new contracts, they won't be interested either. I believe McRorie hopes to establish himself in the first team in order to get himself a move down South. I could go on. The idiocy of freezing players out because they're looking for a change in their lives is there for all to see. We'd constantly be playing half a team. Players come and go all the time because they're human beings who don't all want to stay in the same city all their lives. Wright has done absolutely nothing wrong. The club took a risk and decided to see if he was going to return on form and they've been caught out. A year's extension in the summer would have solved all these problems, but they didn't have faith in the player.

Dyer acted like a child. If my kid was in the killie youth setup, I'd be telling them to get out of there before they risk being hung out to dry by that unprofessional little twat. He's the adult in the situation, you rise above it and treat human beings properly. Sure as fuck he can't complain the next time a player leaves, he's set the benchmark for how killie treat their staff. Wright has done nothing wrong, he's said he wants a move down south, the club publicised it, the Huns expressed an interest and the club publicised again. The club are trying to cash in during this window, they're forcing the issue. Neither Jack nor McKenna downed tools for us, I don't expect Wright to. In our position we need him until he leaves and makes way for a replacement. Scottish football's enjoyability is not based on Wright having the same human rights as every other employee in the UK.

Nonsense, the world has moved on since the days of 85 year contracts and treating players like property. It's a disgusting way to do business. These guys are human beings and employees. We're adults too, a club shouldn't act like kids when dealing with guys in their twenties. Almost every good player that we have will decide to leave at some point, and others we'll drop in seconds too if we decide they're not good enough. If we start getting arsey with players who decide their future isn't exactly as planned for by AFC supporters, then we'll never be able to sign anyone. As I said before, if Wright had a poor start to the season we'd have ditched him in a heartbeat. We should have recognised the type of player Wright is and what he can offer and taken a gamble on a one year extension based on that potential. The club waited and other clubs are now recognising the potential that may (or may not) come to fruition. The Huns approached us to tell us they were interested, so they've done the correct thing it appears. The player has no control over approaches. McKenna had not control over the Tim's approach for him.

Yep, it would be bizarre. The only thing you could say is that if you are going to do something that risky, now is a good time to do it because if there were fans at the games he'd be getting a lot of stick. Also, our setup now is clearly more suited to his game than McInnes' insistence on playing him on the wing. It would be interesting to see if it would break Twitter too. The rage would be fairly special. McInnes would just get his "he feels he has unfinished business" speech out again, IT would just reinstate his account, so it would be quite an efficient signing.

He hasn't had talks with the Huns. They have expressed an interest in him. One is within his control, the other not. Seems to me that the club are very keen for him to leave in this window and so are doing their business in public. It may even be the case that the player doesn't really want to go to the Hun but will be left with little option if further offers don't transpire and the club continues in this manner. The Huns don't need Wright this season and would be best served offering him a pre-contract, which would force our hand. At least they have taken the decent approach of contacting McInnes to note their interest, the rest is up to us.