RicoS321

I'd say that it's fairly obvious. Reason is that I'd like us to offload before we take in players - but I accept that is difficult and McRorie was available right now. The reason I'd prefer it this way round is that I think that having too many players competing for so few positions will have a negative impact. I see guys like McGeouch, Bryson, Gleeson previously, as detrimental even being there. Any minutes they get in an attempt to make them feel happy are wasted minutes, that should have been given to a young player. If guys like Campbell and Virtanen can't see a clear path to a regular first team spot (I think Campbell probably can now) then it is unnecessarily de-motivating. McInnes is quite good at getting rid of players he's signed, but if often takes him a long time (Gleeson, Main, May), because nae cunt wants them. We need to limit squad size and have a better/enforced balance of youth. Happy with the signing if it's swiftly followed by exits. I'd agree about McRorie being an investment, but then so was Ojo. Ojo didn't look match-sharp against the Hun, but there were some good performances last season.

Is there still an issue up here? It seems to have been drowned out by the even more spectacular fuck ups doon Sooth.

No fee, he's just there to help them with a door that's jammed.

Good stuff, welcome aboard etc. According to that article, we're still on the look out for a striker, so fair enough. As Panda says, he scored against us previously, which is why McInnes is signing him, as that's how he decides all his transfers (one good game against us is all it takes to become a dandy). I think he'll be a very good addition. Although if anyone can pick our midfield for the next game, they'll get a virtual pint. I reckon it'll be McRorie sitting behind Ferguson and Campbell. The annoying thing is that we really only need that type of sitting midfielder against the scum, and he won't be able to play in 50% of those this season, I'd like to see McGeouch moved on in the meantime, I think there's a strong chance that Campbell's game time will be limited again by a surplus of "talent" in the midfield, for no apparent reason.

It's fairly standard in most industries. Just as if you went into yer work's office with Covid and passed it to some ithers and they found out that you'd been to for a meal with yer mates and caught it, it very much widnae be a sackable offence.

Reading it back, you're correct. I clearly didn't make it past the "bankrupting the club" pish. Apologies Ayrshire, you're correct, we've made a loss in the transfer market.

Interesting if true. "Cormack wants some shipped out asap" is a bit worrying though. The tims were really lucky that it was one of their gash players, so they can ditch him and make it look like they're taking a tough stance (although they didn't ditch the racist, so who knows). The dons can't really ditch the shite ones and keep the good ones and still look professional! The club needs to come out and say exactly what happened with the rule breaking. There's a definitely a cut off between where the players have fucked up and the club have fucked up. If I were a player, I'd be unhappy with paying a fine too. There's a statutory fine already for people who break the 4 household rule, which they should pay. If I were someone like Bryson or Hayes who'd already had a good career, I'd walk away from the game. Fuck being treated like you're somebody's possession and subject to a witch hunt for a minor offence. They don't get paid enough for that shit, we're nae premiership.

No it isn't. The initial thread was about his legacy, not performance in the transfer market. If he's changed the subject halfway through, then I'm in complete agreement that McInnes has been poor in the transfer market. Nobody ever stated otherwise.

The club has made a profit overall in the years McInnes has been here. It doesn't matter if players signed > players sold. If you were to include that, then you'd also have to conclude that the squad value is significantly higher than when he joined too. If we'd sold Cosgrove, McKenna and Ferguson at the start of the window, we'd have likely hit 8 figures. Nothing close to that occurred under Brown (maybe Fraser, if handled correctly). I think his signings have been way under par, and I've mentioned it a thousand times, but his financial legacy is fine because our results have been good (performances, not so much). What would make his financial legacy tank, is if we made the stupid decision to pay him off this season before crowds return. It'd be whooring expensive. That's the club's legacy though, as is allowing McInnes complete control over the football budget.

The club is either bankrupt or it isn't. You can't "further" bankrupt it. Both are in the final year of their contracts, we'll likely end up paying them a small amount to top up a salary they get elsewhere (i.e. gardening leave). There was no real evidence that Bryson would fail the way he did, he had a minor injury when signed which wasn't the reason Derby were letting him go. Devlin was exceptionally high risk. I was surprised when I first saw him at how poor he was on the ball. He shouldn't have been signed on that basis rather than his medical history. The comparison would be Hoban. It's clear he can defend and also comfortable with the ball at his feet, so worth the six month deal. I'm actually not that concerned by the injured players, more the sheer volume of unsuccessful signings in general. Leigh, Ojo maybe, were successful last season, with the jury still out on Kennedy and Hernandez. I think it's been a bit of a blessing that we can't afford to sign anyone this summer.

He'd probably be classed as a more traditional defensive midfielder, so maybe a bit like when Ball or Hobban played there (but better). The sort of guy you'd see in a 4-1-4-1, rather than a 4-2-3-1 if you like. Unless he can play right back well of course, as I still think Hernandez is high risk and could turn out to be shite. Either way, it's nae a striker, which is really our requirement right now.

Edit: Of course, we don't really need him, but then that's the way we work it seems and until there is pressure at board level, it's difficult to see it ending. I always thought his best position was in front of the defence, with a particular focus on tackling (as opposed to say Ojo or McGeouch who are ball carrying types). That would be particularly useful in games against the hun or tim and it could allow us to play with a more attacking midfield overall by playing perhaps McGinn centrally and have Ferguson play higher. However, unless we offload at least one other midfielder, we're ridiculously heavy in that area. Strikes me as a "he's available, we better make sure nobody else gets him", McGeouch type signing.

I think he's a great player. I'm surprised the huns haven't made more out of him. I'm pretty uncomfortable loaning from the huns (although Andrea Velicka was a fantastic bit of business) but that's slightly alleviated by the agreed fee. Or.... perhaps if we injure him in training and send him back and ask for another player, continuing the process until all their players are either injured or dead. Then Hibs might manage to finish second.

Sounds about right. Boring probably a good way to describe it. Reminds me a lot of East Aberdeenshire, which was indicative of its surroundings. Some cunt at portlethen tried to enforce the "collar" rule when I was there, that put me massively off. Will maybe try it again sometime, but I'll maybe get some practice in first.

Aye, a weird thing titles, more so those that use them on themselves. Fit's your thoughts on portlethen course? I hate it, find it very dull and the dual carriageway close by just grates. Then I'm fairly pish at golf which likely doesn't help and I found the rough used to be a little too unforgiving for someone who thinks using the fairways is cheating. It plays quite long when yer hacking about.

I made a fine sourdough yesterday (one for the other thread perhaps). Will make for great toast for today's lunch. I have to admit, I'm a decent cook, but I really struggle with ideas for lunches as someone who grew up on sandwiches. I make wraps most days (proper send, fae scratch) or flatbreads which allow for a broader variety of ingredients than her sandwich, but it's still a variant of the sandwich in effect. I should really consider swapping my big and little meals roon and make more effort at lunch, like they do on the continent.

It's military pish. A day set aside for playing at sudjers. Not sure how it translates to its modern day equivalent. I'm guessing it'd be like a day free of consequences perhaps?

Nice one, thanks. I'll check out A M Smith like. I like the sleepers for convenience, but reckon the wife would prefer the steens, as they do look cracking. Probably a similar size bed in my garden like, although we've got a fairly big front garden too if I ever get round to it. I'll likely start and give up half way!

Stunning garden Elgin, love to do similar masel. Far did you get her steens? Did you build the dyke yersel and how much earth did you need for the borders? I've just got a shit ton of bland grass, and I really need to dig up at least a third of it for planting. I like the wall idea, as it'd save digging up grass, o could just earth over it.

Fuck that. Why would we let the best manager we've had in 25 years, with 2 years left on his contract, go for less than £6M?

Yep, very reasonable, it's a shame we only ever get half the story. I think I remember reading it was one or two days to get tests back. Remember, Hibs didn't get tests returned in time for a pre-season game to go ahead? In retrospect, I think you're right, perhaps 4 game ban wouldn't be that unreasonable because if the games hadn't been cancelled then that's the number of games they could have missed (3 in the dons case, but there are some 14 day periods that have 4 matches). Hopefully they'll sort out the time it takes for future offences as, had the games gone ahead then the players could have faced missing 7 matches in total which would seem mental. You'd think that the rules would have been drilled into the players, but that clearly wasn't the case at AFC, given Johnny Hayes explanation. You wonder if the testing part and match day and training protocols have been drilled in, but they didn't pay much attention to the out of office guidelines, which would be basically the same for all of us. They'll definitely be aware of them now.

He's reassuring, without actually saying anything reassuring. I don't trust him. Seemed to quickly turn into a politician when asked difficult questions on the radio a few months back. He suffers from the same issue as most in that the questions he gets asked are shite, so he doesn't have to answer with any particular insight, which is not his fault at all of course. In the Aberdeen case, I've heard both him state that the rules were clear, but not once has either fully articulated those rules and how they were broken. Nor were they asked to, of course. The questions I'd like him to respond to: Which rules were broken? What caused the cancellation of the games? What would be different in genuine cases of covid that were not detected until after training had resumed that week (say Thursday)?

Apologies, I wasn't suggesting you were saying they were lying, I was asking if that's what you were saying - that wasn't clear. I assumed that the club's protocol that was broken was the four households rule. Or, more simply, breaking of a general public lockdown rule - by default - is a breach of club protocol (hence the previous case didn't break it). Some good points there though, I hadn't considered they might ask a series of questions about where players had been. That would suggest that the players either lied about it, which I find unlikely, or the person asking the questions failed to pick up that 8 players responded the same (in which case the club would have made the additional suggested return to training error, not the players). That it took until the Thursday isn't surprising to me, as that would have been when the test results were returned. Listening to Hayes' interview, the suggestion was that the players hadn't considered what they'd done was incorrect until that point. The fact he was given that platform on the club's YouTube channel suggests that the club believe that account and that there was no attempt by the players to cover anything up. What is clear, is that it really isn't that clear! That's the bit I find the most frustrating. Nobody on here seems to know, yet have been fairly scathing despite that. The only offence we can be certain of is fairly minor. If they lied to the club, that turns it into something different. If the club have fucked up then we need to know too. However, more importantly, if the only breach was the 4 household rule then it appears the protocols in place would never, and could never mitigate for a genuine covid case, alternatively, the cancelling of games was a punitive measure. It has to be one of those two things.

Thanks, that makes sense. So how does that differ from normal then? If three groups of three had gone to different Aberdeen nightspots and two had contracted covid, what would happen? What's the difference between broken rules covid and non-broken-rules covid? I don't see how multiple covid cases can be handled within the protocols? Just to get this correct, the players were tested and two returned positive for covid. At this point this could have been a "normal" case of covid. One that could have been picked up before Saturday's game (when all 8 players would have been together), so the same measures would surely have taken place either way? The bubble they work in is broken every game surely? Just to be clear, are you saying that the players lied about being out together? Or that the club lied about it?

No I'm not. I said the punishment is being made up as they go along, not the crime. The club have stated that they broke the four households rule (which is the same for everyone). Nobody has suggested any further breaking of the rules. Are you happy that is the only rule that has been broken, or have you got evidence of other rules being broken (I'm more than happy to change my position if I'm wrong)? Working on the basis that I, and the club, are correct then the breaking of the four households rule in and of itself did not cause the two players to get covid, agreed (they could have gone in to three different restaurants or in three separate tables in the same place and caught it)? I'm not trying to legitimise what the players did, they clearly broke the rules, I'm saying that the rule break is reasonably minor and one which many people in the UK will have broken to a greater or lesser degree themselves. It comes with its own ready-made punishment with 14 days isolation, missing of games and on top a deserved club fine and I would suggest that the SPFL add in a minimum 3 games missed for anyone in breach of the rules to even things up (in case players in isolation miss two games, where some miss three). The point I was making was regarding the Scottish government's intervention. First, the reaction to the Aberdeen players was way over the top, to the point of hysteria. It called for a measured response that took into account the gravity of the crime. That way when far worse rule breaking occurs, in the case of bolingoli, you have the ability to step up the criticism where required to recognise more serious breaches. The AFC offence could have been used positively to show a small breach can have a big impact. That's what I'd expect from a leader like Sturgeon. Her actual reaction is what I'd expect from Johnson. I accept that is also a minor criticism and new territory for the government. Second, was the cancellation of games. I can forgive the st Johnstone game, the government were caught by surprise, late notice etc. What happened after that showed that punishments were being dished out by the government rather than SPFL and that they were being made up on the hoof. That, for me, sets a ridiculous precedent that could see the cancellation of the season if continued. There is no scientific difference between a person who has caught covid because of a breach of rules and one who's caught it normally. We were led to believe that the testing and protocols in place would allow players to get covid and not result in cancellations. The cancellations suggest that is not the case. The lack of cancellation of the Kilmarnock game after bolingoli played in the prior game suggests it's being made up on the hoof. I think that state intervention into fitba's punitive measures should have us all concerned if that was the case. Which is it? Do you know? If you're going to make up rules, then you need to expect that these rules will be breached. What to do when those breaches occur should have been strategised as soon as the rules were made, not made up on the fly. It reeks.