RicoS321

Good stuff. The fact that it's done in this window means we can't be held to ransom by O'Connor. I'd be tempted to let him and Arnason go in the summer now and go for one good midfielder and perhaps a (pacier) centre half cover that can also play right back (someone akin to McNaughton in style but on the right).

I don't think we put 11 men behind the ball against the hun in the last couple of games, but we did exactly that in every game against them and the tims prior to those. I'm not sure which games you were watching. How many of the shots on goal came after we were 2-0 down the other night? Stats are only useful in context.

It could equally highlight that they are both better teams, but have the tendency to be complacent when smaller teams raise their game against them. The bookies tend to have the huns favourites when they've played us recently. They've spent much more. Objectively, we should be taking points off them (the hun), especially at Pittodrie, but they should have the better record, so we are probably one win down on where we should be against the hun. Objectively (based on resources), we should be getting about 1 win per season against the Tim.

I didn't mean we shouldn't ever get points at Iprix, just that the default based on the teams would dictate that they should be beating us. We didn't give ourselves a chance like by playing shite. The problem with pressing is that you have to do it from the very front, and Rooney can't do that. He works hard, but once he's out of position chasing someone then he's not getting back. When he does chase back then he's out of position for the break. It's a huge problem for us. That's why Stockley was always the preferred option in the big games despite being totally horse. We've backed ourselves into a corner by just having Maynard as the option. Stockley was actually more useful despite being pish.

Is this some sort of quote fae a film?

Morelos is a better striker than Rooney, Tavernier is a much better attacking full back than Logan (and he inexplicably defended very well last night), Goss looked decent in midfield, Murphy is a better player than GMS and Candeis better than Stewart. It's not significant, but they're sightly better than us and they were at home. We need to have our best team out to beat them and I think that would have included McGinn, May and Arnason rather than Stewart, Rooney and O'Connor but fitness meant that wasn't possible. We were weak and we played weakly but I don't think we should be expecting to come away from Ibrox with points given the current squads.

Great point. Hertz and Hibs too. Would McLean and Shinnie have joined us rather than the hun? I'm not convinced. Ayrshire, if you take it window upon window, we maybe don't have the option to pool the resources and get a better player. We seem to be getting one per window. This season, we could have replaced both Ball and Maynard with a single better player, but would you have chosen a striker or defender? I'd have gone for striker, but given Ball can cover right back, right centre back and midfield maybe McInnes had a point in getting both. I'd have taken the risk with a good striker and made up any injury shortfall with the others in our squad. It's safe to say that Tansey was signed as a first team player, which was just a very bad signing. I don't think we can count him in the "punts" category like the other two.

For the first time in years, I don't believe this to be true. They do have better players than us, and now they appear to be well organised. Murty isn't some tactical genius, he just puts good players out in a formation they can play in and that's enough. Our weaknesses are obvious, in midfield, centre half and striker. We just don't have the depth in those areas and the first choice is also questionable. Weirdly, Ball came on and shored up our midfield? Fit was that about? If he'd started Ball in midfield he'd have - correctly - been slaughtered. Yet given their set up with Tavernier on the right, having Shinnie wider might have helped us. GMS simply couldn't provide the cover required and Considine kept coming inside because our midfield was overrun constantly. We're a couple of players short. We can beat all the other teams though, which means it will be close this season.

I think we need to accept that there is a hit rate for signings. I think this stands at about 50% for AFC at the moment. I suspect there are few clubs that are significantly better. I don't think it's fair to produce a list of shite AFC signings without a comparative list of other team's signings. That doesn't include Celtic (possibly even the huns) who can afford to make more mistakes and a player that is shite for a £25K per week player can still be good in the SPL. The point is that when we go into a window, we have to sign with the expectation that at least 1 in 4 won't work out and accept that that is the general rule. The success rate becomes more variable when you're bringing in players from other leagues, which the majority on your list are. Our best signings have all been known SPL players that we've been able to afford over other teams. The unacceptable ones are the Tanseys and Storeys of the world who are blatantly not up to it pre-signing. I suspect every manager has a few of those where they think they can get something out of a player that others haven't before them. The question then, is, are these speculative punts worth it to uncover the Logans, Lewises and so on. Given the paucity of those in recent years, it could certainly be questioned. The second question is whether they are harming our youth development? I'm still not sure. Cammy Smith isn't a worse footballer than Maynard for example, but would playing Smith instead of Maynard (we don't have a youngster to use instead of Smith in that position in my example) make Smith good enough for the dons? Not really, and the lack of minutes would mean it affects his career too - he's best served moving on as he did. I thought bringing McLennan back from loan and ditching Maynard would be good initially, but actually the time he's getting at Brechin is probably more valuable than sitting on our bench as Ross can probably attest too. Let's face it, there are very few in your list (non-SPL) that we could have been certain were going to be shite in the SPL before signing them. Ideally we just wouldn't be making these signings at all, but we do have to fill our squad. McInnes is generally good at ditching players who are shite, but he seems intent on keeping Maynard until the summer which is a complete error. We'd be far better off removing him from our options and forcing ourselves to change our setup rather than bring him on (play McGinn up front or whatever). There is no good reason to have him in the squad as at some point you feel obliged to give him game time. Like all of the players in your list, he's basically cover for the cover. They are all back up to the actual signings we want to make and spend time on. Zola, Tansey and Stockley are the exceptions in your list. They were brought in as first team contenders. Given the success rate of teams at our level, the most important thing is retention and we've been surprisingly good on that front. Even for guys like O'Connor and Reynolds, often "better the devil you know" is the best option to take. We need continuity because if we have a strike rate of 50% and need to replace 4 players, then that's 8 signings we'd have to make. Say what we like about O'Connor and Reynolds (maybe), but none of the players on that list of failures is any better. If one of our punts is better then we retain them and ditch one of the two. Otherwise we continue as we are with our serious signings and the speculative punts on top. It's frustrating, but I don't see another way. It has to be strategic and by design, so fit would be your strategy?

Get Maynard to fuck and get a visa for the Nigerian. The time to buy was before tonight's game though.

Pretty disappointing. I'd have picked the same team (assuming Arnason wasn't fit, but he's been fairly average this season anyway). O'Connor was pish though. The number of times a player ran across him and he allowed them to shoot was criminal. Ball actually played okay when he came on, which was weird, and we created a few chances late in the game. Stewart, GMS and Christie were pap, and Rooney offered absolutely nothing to bring them all together - like May did very well against Hibs recently. That, for me, is the most important part of the pitch in these "bigger" games against better teams, and it's costing us. Rooney works hard, but when he's tracking back, then he's miles away from getting back in the box again and too slow to get involved. Against better teams (and the huns are one of the better teams) who pass it around a bit, he gets dragged into these wasteful positions for most of the games and he's not only rendered completely ineffective, but the opposition also get the time and confidence to build from the back. We had to address the striker issue before this game. We know that Rooney's style doesn't work when we don't have the majority of possession. McInnes knows this, hence why even Stockley got so much game time against the top 3-4. We also know that May is struggling for fitness. Most importantly, we also know that looking to the bench and seeing Maynard was fucking depressing. He performs no function whatsoever, so he should have been removed. At least when we had Magennis you know he could be a battering ram. Stockley you could punt the ball at and hope something got knocked down and Storey might force a defender into mistaking him for a footballer and making a mistake. We needed that third option fae the bench to draw the game up the pitch and it wasn't there. It's been obvious from the start of last season and it hasn't been addressed.

From memory - I'll try and look back later if I have time - that the planning was not revoked, simply that the land that had been offered to Cove for free, instead got a price attached to it. It affected the training facilities at Calder Park, which were deemed "integral" and access road, but the council said that there was plenty of room for discussion. The club had planning permission, they didn't follow it through. It was beyond the stage that Kingsford was at, the Scottish government had not called in the planning application. It was up to AFC and solely AFC.

^^^This

So it wasn't at Ibrox, we didn't win and there was probably no glass or Dandies going berserk. Nips, min, yer going to have to think a little harder. Are you sure it wasn't a Killie game at Pittodrie?

Interesting post Barcosente. However, I think it's all to simple to be critical of the cooncillors, it's the easy way out. The problem is that the council get nothing but shite ideas presented to them. I don't think I've seen a single, integrated, forward thinking planning application to the city in years. We have individual project over individual project that offer nothing in the grand scheme and the negatives on all far outweigh the positives. Kingsford is an example of that, as is Marischal square, obviously. You mention Union St, it basically started to go to shite when Union Square was built, but try removing that from the city and watch the backlash (again, lack of integration - it was obvious). Coupled with the fact that the cooncil has absolutely zero teeth/power when it comes to dealing with how private property (which all of union st is) is leased and you have bookies. Not really a cooncillor issue. In terms of Loirston, it was approved. They simply asked that AFC pay for the land. The blame here squarely lies with Cove (mainly, as they dicked about for years) and the club. We fucked about and fucked about (unlike the SMG and Scotia hoosing developments that were piggy backed in on the back of the stadium approval) and in the end we chose to blame the council because it was the easy way out. There's no way that the additional cost of the land would/shold have prevented Loirston going ahead - they've probably spent more on Kingsford subsequently. It's totally disingenuous to blame the cooncil and, I suspect, was more an issue of AFC funding. Now, the cooncil may be unqualified to make these decisions, but then who is? Where are the overriding rules that govern their decisions? Where is the integrated city plan? The fact of the matter is that the right decision for the cooncillors to make on Monday is to refuse the planning application on the grounds that it doesn't integrate with the city. It is the only logical decision to make. It's a hard one for dons fans and the club, but it doesn't integrate with the city and that should be the overriding rule that dictates planning within the city. That's the only objective way of looking at it. Can it be sustained if you extrapolate it over the next 20, 50, 100 years? The answer is no. The only way to pass is this is to come up with a city plan that - by design - then integrates the stadium in the city. It's the most stupid and arse about tit way to do things, but that would work. Although that would take a lot of balls by the unqualified cooncillors. If you can come up with another objective measure that should dictate city planning, I'd be interested to hear it? Because your interesting post lacked a little substance.

Agreed. Pish. What do planners actually approve though? Just the site access, that sort of jazz? The councillors doing the social, moral, objectional aspects of it?

in peace.

Yep, hopefully Harvie will get some more game time over the next few months, however he looks a good bit off first team material at present. I was hoping he'd be a good bit better. He looked quite tall at the weekend though, which surprised me. 5ft9 according to wiki but he looked a bit taller than that when he came on at the weekend. Perhaps he's still growing. Anyway, he reminds me of Clark Robertson a little, which is probably nae a good thing.

No, but he's comfortable on a fitba. He doesn't just fearfully punt it, his first touch is decent and he can find a man 90% of the time. Considine's better on the ball than Reynolds, O'Connor and Logan, he's just slow.

The problem is that he's not very good at actual football. He has zero confidence on the ball.

Exactly, and giving the role to an unemployable racist means he's likely to be there for sometime.

That's why I said second half! He was gash for the goal, but so were our midfield and rest of the defence in the build up. I would get rid too, in an ideal world, but if we only have the resources to recruit 2-3 decent players in the summer then I think we keep hold of Reynolds as cover for a bit longer until we get someone better or - as you suggest - promote from youth in Mbayo (unit like) or Roscoe. Reynolds is a very professional, intelligent guy that does no harm to our squad to have around. We just don't have the scouting ability or resources to go out and get 4 good players in the summer without making a fuck up along the way. If we get lucky and pick up a gem then get rid then, but I certainly wouldn't make it a priority.

Aye, we're allowing it. The BBC is covering it like it's a thing. It's dangerous as you say. It detracts from the things that should be being investigated So we need to get to the point where it isn't crucial, because it really should not be crucial. We don't need a leader, we don't need to be led. We need targets and goals as a society and the person who takes us there is ourselves. We've deified people in a system of deification. It's bad shite and it leads to this deep, deep investigation of a person's flaws in order to find out that UKIP's policies are zenophobic, nationalist pish. We knew this anyway, we don't need a UKIP leader to project this. Pollicy, policy, policy. Stop personalising politics, and remove power from individuals (see Donald T). That's the only way. Remove power from individuals and you remove power from their friends. We need accountability, but not on who someone is biffing.

Sounds like O'Connor's agent perhaps trying to get the dons to up their offer. Anyway, no great loss, a pretty limited player that could easily be replaced. Save us seeing him in midfield again. Not sure I'd keep Arnason either, don't think he's been as good as folks thought he might. Pool our resources and get one decent centre back with Reynolds and Considine as cover. Reynolds is okay as cover, he seemed to settle in the game in the second half at the weekend but certainly wouldn't be disappointed to see him go in the summer. Again, it comes down to our ability to get good signings in. I think if we got Devlin in we could happily let Arnason and O'Connor leave. As far as I'm aware we don't have any youngsters coming through at centre back (after McKenna), so we get one additional right sided defender in as cover for centre back and full back like we've done with Quinn, Ball etc in the past. Above that, we still need two centre mids and a striker. That could be difficult for us. Getting 4 good players in a single window will be exceptionally difficult. Worse if Christie leaves. We'd be looking at 6 signings probably, and that'd be hoping for a high success rate. With that in mind, perhaps we keep the devil(s) we know in Reynolds and O'Connor for cover, sign a single centre back and a single centre mid and a striker then take it from there. It's easy to ditch players, but we've seen how difficult it is to get decent replacements (see Tansey, Maynard and Ball in the last window). We're 3 from 6 this summer as far as good signings go, which is in line with most seasons. If we let Arnason and O'Connor go then we potentially need 3 signings in order to get one replacement and one cover.

Totally. Although it was probably helped by the example set by his boss too. Any desire to go to the hun was probably booted into touch at that point too when he realised what a shambles they still were.