RicoS321

We haven't had a midfielder that comes close to the tenacity and drive of Shinnie since Severin and none of our existing midfielders come close. Yer Gleeson's might cut it against St Mirren, but I wouldn't want to go into a game against the hun or the tims without Shinnie in there (as shown recently in our powder-puff performance against them). He was phenomenal in there against the Tim in the last game of the season and carried us through the game at times away to Burnley. His best position is left back, but the margin between Shinnie and Considine at left back (and the impact it has on games) versus Shinnie and Gleeson/Ball/Hoban(?) is considerable in favour of Shinnie playing in midfield. Unless either a) Gleeson/Ball remarkably ups their game; b) we completely change our style of play; c) sign a better midfielder; then we definitely can play Shinnie at left back this season. If not, then I think we need to choose one or the other for the sake of continuity (unless to cover injury of course) as I think chopping and changing is affecting Shinnie's performances too. The problem that we have is that we could play a midfield of Ferguson, Gleeson and Wright (or Ball in place of either of those) for 65% of the games and be fine, but when we get to the big games that combination just doesn't cut it and it's the heart of our team (and the pitch). We've shown on numerous occasions that Considine at left back is fine in the big games (see Burnley, Tims last game, Huns last game etc) if we don't start fucking about with him in a 5. We can mitigate for his lack of pace, but I don't see any way of mitigating the lack of ability in a midfield without Shinnie and I'm very surprised that you guys do (with existing personnel, obviously). We wouldn't have beaten the Tims in the last game of the season with Shinnie at left back, we wouldn't have drawn with Burnley with Shinnie at left back. Those are the big games that we can't do without Shinnie being in midfield. I don't see the point in playing one way against the poorer teams and then completely changing for games against better teams but I can't see another way. We've only just found a way that we can play against better teams at all with the post-split games and the Burnley tie, I'm not sure that we should change that. Not without better players.

Walk along the length of Hadrian's Wall shouting abuse at Brexitland.

Goalkeepers Jordan Archer (Millwall) Craig Gordon (Celtic) Allan McGregor (Rangers) Defenders Jack Hendry (Celtic) Charlie Mulgrew (Blackburn Rovers) Stephen O’Donnell (Kilmarnock) Andrew Robertson (Liverpool) Graeme Shinnie (Aberdeen) John Souttar (Heart of Midlothian) Kieran Tierney (Celtic) Midfielders Stuart Armstrong (Southampton) Tom Cairney (Fulham) James Forrest (Celtic) Ryan Fraser (Bournemouth) Kevin McDonald (Fulham) John McGinn (Aston Villa) Callum McGregor (Celtic) Scott McTominay (Manchester United) Callum Paterson (Cardiff City) Forwards Leigh Griffiths (Celtic) Oliver McBurnie (Swansea City) Matt Phillips (West Bromwich Albion) Johnny Russell (Sporting Kansas City) I'll remove the unnecessary spaces in your squad list for you.

I didn't see the game, or listen to it as I wasn't about on Saturday. I haven't watched the highlights yet, but it sounds quite typical of our approach. As others have pointed out, the tactic of "game management" does actually work and is clearly drilled into the players despite how horrendous as it is. I also think that there's a vast difference between game management of passing the ball about and retaining possession - which we've done very successfully in the last few seasons and the backs-to-the-wall approach which sounded as if it were the case at the weekend. I think McInnes would recognise the distinction and would want to aim for the former. I mentioned after the huns game that we deserved a draw as they sat in when there was no real evidence that they needed to (they could easily have continued the way they had for most of the match and won), and this is no different. Whilst we've held out in a lot of games, you deserve to lose a goal if you play specifically not to lose a goal (for a long period of time). Claims by McInnes about a penalty decision earlier in the game are irrelevant too, that had zero bearing on our tactics. The above said, I do still think we have personnel issue when trying to win games comfortably. I think Wright may be the answer to that this season unless we can get likes of Christie (a Christie-like player) from the Tim. Either one of those allows that bit of breathing space further up the pitch and means that May isn't the only one preventing a defender walking out of defence with the ball. None of the midfielders at the weekend fitted that bill. It is also very worrying that Shinnie is still our best midfielder (hibs game aside it seems) and it means that we'll be having the left back discussion all season.

Why in the world would anyone think that Forrester would be in the starting line up? He's been terrible so far and hasn't done anything to warrant getting a start. Not to say that he won't turn it around in the coming weeks, but unless you've been watching our training sessions then I'm struggling to see what you could possibly have seen that you think would give Deek any real decision at all. I understand the rest of your suggested team like, just not Forrester. To me, that'd be a far bigger risk against Hibs than playing Ross and to the detriment of Wright in that attacking midfield role too would be a double blow to our chances. I think it was telling that when Forrester came on last week, he was played in a wide role (where he really struggled defensively) and Wright continued centrally until being subbed. To me that suggests Forrester is second to Wright in that role. If anything I could see a midfield 3 of Ball, Shinnie and Ferguson or Gleeson for Ball over your suggestion. I think you're right with the Hoban and Considine arrangement though. If it came to it - I'm not sure it will - I think McInnes would trust Considine at centre half over Hoban.

McInnes suggesting McGinn won't be fit (although we've heard that sort of comment before), so I think Ross just slips straight in. Hoban back too, so we might see Shinnie back in midfield, but I doubt it.

It would be, and I don't imagine it will happen. It would be as good as deliberately trying not to win. Wright made himself un-droppable after last week's performance to the extent that there's not even a decision to be made (a bit like McKenna did last season). The other point is that there is simply no other tactical/personnel option that currently would allow for a typical McInnes cautious move. If Forrester had been playing well then we would undoubtedly have seen him given the opportunity over Wright. However, he's been pap so far and hasn't left McInnes with a decision because the two are night and day at present. It's too early to say but I think, like McKenna last season, Wright will be the guy that gets us out of the hole of poor(ish) signings this season.

Should be a good one. Will be interesting to see how we approach it. The St Mirren game was almost useless as a barometer of what to expect from SPFL opposition, we certainly won't get the freedom and weakness shown by them from Hibs. I think I'd go for McGinn if he's fit, as his tracking back would be useful (and I think he'll make an airse of Ambrose) and I didn't think Ross quite showed he was ready to play against a better team (although I'd have him involved a lot more this season as he looks a lot more solid), but certainly get him in if McGinn isn't fit. Main concern is midfield. I don't think we've quite got a good three in there with Gleeson the main concern. He was better against St Mirren, but just needs to get the workrate going a bit more. He certainly showed that there was a possible role for him, of the "Jack" type, but he needs to provide significantly more cover for the fullbacks (Logan) getting forward. I think Ball should be in for this one, but maybe another run out will be what Gleeson needs. I still think we're going to need Shinnie in there pretty soon as I don't think we've got the fight in there at present. Wright will hopefully assume the role he did against St Mirren, where he played really high up the park in support of May, but also maintained excellent positional discipline too. I don't see any circumstance in which he'd be dropped. I'd go: ---------------Lewis--------------- Logan---Devlin----Consi----Shinnie ---------------Ball------------------- GMS---Ferguson---Wright---McGinn -----------------May---------------

Aye, I see fit yer sayin. I just assumed Commons had plucked those figures from his fud, but we'll never know given the sparsity of anything in the article.

You would assume that is because they are fact checking. But in this article that clearly isn't the case. They just shouldn't be publishing the article, it's as simple as that. They are obliged to be truthful and this article is clearly unresearched pish. Asking Chris Commons his opinion is an article (although it fucking shouldn't be) but the horseshite before it is, as you say, unverified copy and paste. Fitba doesn't matter, obviously, but this allowance of others to set the agenda is so destructive and so dangerous and has huge implications in everything we do. I wonder what Nigel Farage thinks about Celtic's bid? We should get him on question time 3 times a week to tell us.

Yep, it's fucking awful once again from Chris McLaughlhun. You'd think that he'd have learned his lesson after being used by the hun in their approach for our manager. There should at least be an indication of what he's done to verify the story and when he says "Aberdeen are adamant" what is meant by this. The BBC should hold themselves to very high standards and football shouldn't be allowed to circumvent that.

Which part? I didn't think that were was too much issue with what he said there. They're not going to be paying £8M for him, they'd just tell us to stick it. Do you think we shouldn't be accepting less like? Do you think anyone would pay that? I'm not convinced, but I could be way wrong. I think £3.5M is a fairly hefty offer like. It was comments about Aberdeen not being a passing team that were illiterate guff though, the little fuckwit. To think he is/has been a pundit at some point.

Fait bit of balls from the club if they have turned that type of offer down (I don't believe it like, would seem pretty high so early in negotiations, stinks of the tims trying to use the press to force the dons' hands by subtly informing the player of the bid). We hold all the cairds here though. The Tims are getting restless about the perceived lack of signings because Rodgers hid behind it, and that will allow us to really put the pressure on them. The only thing in their favour is that a lot of their fans won't see McKenna as a Tim-worthy signing anyway. Indeed, Commons (illiterate fuckwit) was on the radio this morning stating that McKenna wasn't ready for the Tims because Aberdeen "weren't a possession playing team", clearly showing that he hasn't seen Aberdeen once in the entire time McInnes has been at the club other than against the Tims and hasn't witnessed our "game management" strategy where we regularly forego attempting to score goals in order to see a game out. He couldn't even look at our basic stats over the last couple of years to back up his point, because it wouldn't have. He might have been correct (I don't agree), but not for the reasons he stated.

Yes, but we're talking about the gap between the current pay and what the next employer pays him. Some are suggesting that there is not a link between the two, whereas I'm suggesting that the link is absolute and for the majority of transfers the main consideration.

The bit in bold is the only bit that I'm arguing here, and we're in agreement. That is the largest factor in determining the players valuation. That is why in the majority of cases a player who is paid more (whether that be at Bolton, the huns, gretna, darlington or the tims) will command a larger fee than those paid less. That is all that I am arguing and all I continue to argue. Wages set the baseline for any transfer fee. That is the argument. I don't know anything about John Stones but clearly Brown is an outlier. There was a huge scramble between the huns and tims to sign him with the huns assuming they had got him at one point. There was a large amount of money in the game at that point too, and Hibs youngsters were seen as a surefire bet. There hasn't been a transfer like it within the Scottish game since (maybe Craig Gordon, but he too was exceptional). As I said, the link between wages is the general rule, as can be proven by looking at the overwhelming majority of transfers. Back to the baseline fee part. The baseline for a Tim or a Hun will always be far greater than ours because of wages. Over and above the baseline, is where they pay for percieved exceptional talent. That's what we're looking at with McKenna. We've salaried him at (at a guess) a maximum of £1M over the next 4 years. That's his baseline. Three times that would be an achievement, five times that unlikely (I'm not saying impossible, just unlikely). What is likely is that we'll try and get a future sell-on as that could be massive. What is also likely is that the minute McKenna joins a championship club his value will rise as they are paying him a much larger salary. If he's ace for that club then in turn they will use that salary as a baseline for a sell on. Just as if McKenna was a Tim youth product, he'd be on £15K per week now and they'd be looking at more than £10M for him as they are Tierney (who is a better player also, which helps). They'd be looking at McKenna prices for MacGregor, Forrest etc. who aren't exceptional but are on highish salaries compared with McKenna.

You didn't consider that Windass had a contract until 2021 at a large (comparatively speaking - certainly double McKenna's) salary? I'm not making stuff up, I assumed this was an acknowledged fact that follows logic? You think that a buying club will accept perceived standing in the Scottish game as a benchmark for valuation? Do you think a player that is at Rangers or Celtic will accept £3K per week if the club are asking for £5M for them or would they be straight onto their agent arranging a massive salary increase if they don't move (in Windass' case)? I accept that there might be some uplift in value by being at a bigger club, but nobody is offering £1-2M more for Tavernier or Windass based on club reputation - why in the world would they do that when they're in a free market system and they can just by the next best Windass from some other club? It defies basic logic. Nor does it answer why any number of championship or league one teams can also command large fees for players who also happen to get paid larger salaries. Valuation is arrived at, it's not plucked out of the air (apart from Tommy Wright). Most transfers are not for players where there are no other similar available options - obviously when you reach the top end of the game then you occasionally get astronomical fees - so the notion that anyone would pay over the odds because "we are the people" or something is silly. Agents are involved, rough salary is known by both sides, players know their own value based on what they're being paid (otherwise they'd have asked for more) and above that baseline there are a few other factors based on how desperate either party is. This is completely evidenced by the general steadiness of fees in and around the Scottish and lower English leagues and is just a general function of any market based system. Nobody goes in wildly inflating prices, and fees are historically in line with wages unless someone is an absolute superstar or a rich club desperately wants an individual at any cost. We're talking about the median here, not any outliers, there are some obvious examples that flout the general rules.

Except that's nonsense, as outlined in what I posted above. Do you genuinely think that the huns and tims regularly command significant fees for players that we'd say our no better than average because clubs in England are stupid? Or is it a conspiracy? Or they're doing it because it's the fashionable thing to do (pay elevated fees) down South. A player is valued at what someone is willing to pay for them. If we had offered Maynard £20K for 5 years, then that is what we have valued him at because that was what we were willing to pay for him at the renewal of contract or purchase time. Whether or not somebody else is trying to buy him or not is irrelevant. But you missed the key part: there are two types of player, one that we want to keep and one that we don't. If we want to keep Maynard, then £5M is the minimum we'd expect a club to pay for him as that's what we are willing to invest on him. That value will reduce as the contract expires. If we don't want to keep Maynard, then we'd accept less than £5M in order to get that cost off our books. But your point doesn't work, because we're talking about players that parent teams do want, and so do other teams, which begins the bidding process. You also rarely get extreme examples like you mention precisely because transfers are wages linked (you don't want to pay someone significantly more than their peers).

But it is based on wages, that's the entire point. Tavernier has a contract that runs until 2021, which is three years. If he's on £15K per week (made up figure) then Rangers have already valued Tavernier at £2.25M. That is the value they have assigned to him based on their contract offer. There are two types of player. One that the parent club would like to keep (or is a first team player) and one that they don't want. Tavernier is a player that they want to keep as he plays every week. That means that the buying club will have to pay more than the £2.25M that Rangers are already contracted to pay him in order to get that player because the minimum £2.25M valuation has already been assigned to that player by Rangers' willingness to pay him that. How much more is the only sticking point here, and that's when potential, necessity to buy, necessity to sell, richness of the buying club etc all come in. I don't know who Goldson is, but I expect he's being paid X amount of money which is the value assigned to him by his parent club. McKenna will only have been assigned a value of ~£1M by AFC based on his current contract. They may have minimum transfer clauses etc to mitigate this, but that's what AFC are valuing him at based on their contract club wage structure. That he's got a 5 year contract, we have no desire to sell, no need to sell and the player seems happy enough, plus the fact that he has the potential to be worth siginificantly more in the future if developed correctly, then a high end of £3.5M would be possibly manageable. Unless I'm way off in what we're paying McKenna, or if they've worked in some sort of grading that pulls his salary up massively in a few years then I think that'd be about right. "Player X cost n, so Player Y most cost t" is not a formula that exists.

I think that's a little absurd. McKenna will not be going for £9M or anything like that. I've always said that £3.5M would be a very good offer for McKenna, and there's nothing happened since that'd change that. Surely McGinn's transfer fee has brought us down to earth a little on what can be expected? The good thing is that time is on our side, and we don't need to sell in this window. There's no bidding war from England (championship) so now is not a good time to sell. If he continues his form then we should expect bids in January. If the Tims put in a decent bid now (upward of £3M) then expect us to begin negotiations to get that higher. As CvB points out, the Rodgers exit strategy sounds plausible. That could be a decent thing for us (assuming we're selling, which in itself is not a good thing) as we can really pressure the bid. There is only so long that they can continue to miss out on targets without sending their support into hysterics. I say we hold them to £5M, just for a laugh.

I didn't give an assessment of Hoban, you did. You said he was a better right-footed left back than Considine. I'm saying that is a ridiculous conclusion to draw after one game where he was clearly worse than Considine was the following week by any objective measure. That's not a criticism, I think Hoban will do well in holding midfield or defensive cover as he looks to be a decent player.

I don't know, it all seemed a little after the event from them. We had similar with Fraser (not with a tribunal obviously), but everyone - quite rightly - was annoyed with AFC for not acting sooner. We clearly didn't realise we had a player on our hands, and then dicked about offering insulting development wages to a guy who was clearly going to be a first teamer. Everyone blamed the club (a few the player), and correctly so. It was a mistake, and the hope is that we've learned from that. Compare that with our handling of McKenna and it's night and day. The minute he showed first team promise we got him nailed down with a respectful offer on a long contract. Hamilton's entire business model is to promote youth and sell on, that they've made such an error is something that their fans should be holding their CEO to account for. The obvious, and only plausible, conclusion is that they didn't think they had a player on their hands like we did Fraser. The tribunal, it sounds, came to the only conclusion it good given player development and contract offers.

I think that your assessment of Hoban is based on your dislike of Considine rather than Hoban's strengths. Hoban was significantly poorer than Considine in the Burnley legs playing in the same position. Anyone at those games would agree. Not to be harsh on Hoban who was visibly playing on his wrong foot (his body shape was just weird on numerous occasion). You mention he gets exposed against the bigger teams, but that didn't happen once in the run in post-split. The reason? Because he was played at the left of the back four and sat on top of the winger. Every time last season in which he struggled was when he played left of a 3 or left of a five (for about 15 minutes), which was all pre-split games against the Huns and Tims and once against Hearts. We played to his weaknesses, it was atrocious tactics. It's the equivalent of playing Logan at centre half and wondering why he's not winning headers. He was great post split, and great against Burnley. Nobody in the entire world is blinded by the fact that he scored a hat-trick 2 years ago, that's just a weird thing to say.

Possibly, but he's clearly a better striker then anyone they'd likely afford. Perhaps he's incapable of doing the fitba and management at the same time, which is maybe not surprising. I have to admit, I think it's good to see a player wanting to continue as long as he can. Fair play to him*. * the dirty hun fuck etc.

I 100% disagree with this! The difference between Hoban and Considine in the first and second legs in the Burnley game was night and day, with Considine far superior. He bullied Lennon down there, as well as getting on the end of a couple of crosses and generally providing a far better balance. I'm surprised anyone would suggest playing a right footer ahead of him, and I'm certain McInnes definitely wouldn't. Considine has been consistently good for us for several seasons now and earned his place in the team by being above average every week. His performances in a back four are always good and his work rate and fitness are excellent. I don't get the "weak link" suggestion that's always pointed at him, in my opinion it's just lazy. Is he a better left back than Shinnie? No. A better defender I'd say, but it's obvious what Shinnie brings to that role that Considine doesn't. If we're sticking Shinnie at left back at every week then drop Considine, no questions asked (other than: "what the fuck is our midfield going to do?"). To suggest that we should drop him for some right-footed loanee from Watford who isn't any quicker than him and worse on the ball would just be crazy (and a little disrespectul). Considine is one of the best left backs in the league and it's obvious that wingers don't like playing against him as he gets right up their airses and is aggressive in the challenge. If we're going to replace him, then it has to be with someone as good as Shinnie or else it just isn't worth it. Considine gives something entirely different, and if you don't replace it with something good then you'll lose a lot. I'm not saying Considine is amazing, I'm saying that he's a hell of a lot better than most people give him credit for and should never be passed off as "the weak link" because he hasn't been that since he was a loon getting sent off against the tims. However, if we want to change the style of play siginificantly then there are obvious limitations to Considine's game. He's not a wing back in a five, and he's not a player that can play left of the back three. These are easily recognisable weaknesses that - inexplicably - McInnes ignored in several of the "big" games last season. Those two positions play into his weakness, which is speed on the turn. They allow a winger to get the run on him, which doesn't occur in the left of four where he can sit right on them. In a back three, you can simply switch McKenna and Considine with McKenna's additional pace allowing him to easily deal with the winger issue (as he's played for Scotland). If we're going to be playing a lot with a back five then I do think we need to look at the left wing back area or the centre midfield area. To me, the more obvious solution is to get a better centre midfielder than Gleeson or Ball and allow Shinnie to continue at left back, but I realise that type of midfielder doesn't grow on trees (neither that type of left back).

I don't think McKenna will be going anywhere in this window. I also think that we may have seen the last of our business. The trial of Wright through the middle was telling (in my opinion). I think that's going to be our "like a new signing" moment, and one I have no particular issue with. I think McInnes will have been concerned with Forrester's performances so far in that role and will have wanted cover, but I think he'll struggle to improve on Wright (unless Christie is released by the Tims and he decides to take a punt). With Logan back, if he's unsure about Gleeson then he can just shift Ball into midfield. We've got through the matches with Logan missing so I just can't see us bringing in another defender with McKenna and Hoban back soon.