RicoS321

You guys clearly weren't at the Skonto Riga game. Absolute classic. Torino was a good game. Don't remember any other decent ones in the 90s.

It would have to be a hell of an improvement to see him anywhere near our first team. The reverse is that if he goes somewhere and does nothing (which is currently the most likely scenario given the last 4 years of his career) then even fewer clubs will be willing to take a punt on him, thus we only get 10% of his salary covered, as opposed to the 20-40% we might get by getting rid now. He's not been unprofessional in any way whilst here, just nae been good enough. Offload him and reduce the numbers in the squad thus giving Anderson a chance.

Nine times out of ten, that "technique" ended in him launching a shot 6 miles over the crossbar because he clearly hadn't perfected it in any match setting. He tried to do the modern style kicking under the ball technique on numerous occasions and was only succesful once (he had a great connection against Killie in the final game against them but it was too close to the keeper). It's really not that useful unless it's consistent and isn't done at the expense of all other parts of his game (which it was). Goodwillie also had great technique. Ferguson is just as good, technically, as Wilson in my opinion but backs it up by playing the game with his teammates in mind.

Given that we generally play a 4-2-3-1 and we only have Hedges, McGinn, Wright and McLennan to fill the wide areas (and at least two of those are actually better through the middle) I think that you could be right. I don't think we need May and Main, so I would get rid of May. That'd leave Cosgrove and Wilson fighting for the main striker role and Main to do the May position of filling in just behind/alongside dependent on the opposition. With Anderson as the first sub with a view to him getting more game time and hopefully more goals. Not necessarily true. Some strikers thrive on being a sub and some have useful attributes that can see them changing a game when they come on. Guys like Magennis for instance generally confused the shite out of defenders with his battering ram style. I could see Main being useful in that regard. In terms of Wilson though, I agree, he doesn't really have anything worth bringing off a bench. He's neither clever enough to fit straight in to an attack (Cosgrove is, because he has a very defined role) nor relentless enough to force a tired opponent to make mistakes.

It's a reasonable argument, but I'm not sure that Shankland v Wilson is a useful comparison. That's like saying that you don't like Boris Johnson so Jeremy Hunt would be a useful prime minister. In reality, both aren't good enough based on their current showings and attributes. I'd argue that Wilson has more untapped potential than Shankland - who I think has little room for improvement - but that doesn't mean that anyone will ever see it.

Is he not just another in the long line of Dennis Wyness's? That's the impression I've always had. Nae quite good enough in the top league, but ace in the second.

He was very shite for most of last season. Disinterested and unable to play as part of a team. "He could turn out to be amazing/there's a player in there somewhere" is a very risky strategy for what would be a high earner in such a vital position for us. It might work, but I have a feeling that it won't. In the two half decent - and that's all they were - games he had for us toward the end of the season, he still very much looked like a player that didn't know his position and didn't know his teammates. That could just be through lack of game time towards the end of the season, but it didn't look that way - he just didn't look like a particularly intelligent footballer. The biggest problem is that even with Cosgrove and Main, I still think we're short of a good striker. We've already got wastage in that area with May, we really can't afford more. I'd have been far happier we took a punt on someone else as I don't think Wilson improves our first 11 - at best he'll be a useful addition from the bench in 1 in 5 games. He got a lot of game time last season and was generally less useful than Stevie May. Imagine we'd just had Stevie May on loan last season and we were now trying to get him on a permanent deal. That's about the right level of underwhelming.

It was a shite penalty decision. Cheating cunts.

The Yanks are piling into our game. What's the deal? Be interesting to see the short term moves. Certainly, they've got a great infrastructure and a very good city centre ground, so they should - in theory - be way ahead of us now that their debt is cleared.

Don't worry, the plucky little English will put everyone in their place. From the Americas, to India, to Africa and the Middle East they're known for their sympathetic treatment of the little guy. If there was ever a team that deserved succes, it's England.

The dinked ball for the jap equaliser was sublime. Difficult not to overhit that type of pass. The winning pen was a farce and another example of how dicking about with the rules is ruining things. In this case the handball rule.

How does that work in reality though? Does it not just mean that we have a pre-defined price with his parent club? If he turns out to be ace and the huns offer his parent club the same as us but offer him double the wages he's still obliged to join us? Or is it that both player and parent club have agreed a transfer fee and salary that they will accept if we trigger an option clause? In other words, he's effectively contracted to the dons beyond the end of the season unless we think he's pap?

I think that you really need to be looking into these things in a lot more detail before getting people's hopes up. He looks like the type of player that we might - like Lowe - regret not getting in permanently. Although I suppose that is the market we are in.

Nonsense. Callum Morris was signed from a relegated team, and he was a revelation.

Fucking little shite decided he's too good for the dons already has he? Think's he's fuckin Airchie.

Shrewd move like. He's a very good player. The rehab costs nothing, but it certainly gains a lot if we get a player like Hoban at the end of it. As an aside, I'd like to think we'd do that for any player that was injured whilst playing for us but whose contract has expired. It's just the decent thing to do. Although, his parent should be first to offer.

But that's just a slogan though isn't it? I'm pretty certain that McInnes is buying players that he believes will be as good in their position as Joe is in his, it just turns out that they are not. It is very difficult to tranpose Joe's abilities as a goalie to an outfield player. He's just fantastically good at what he does (I'd argue the best in the league). There aren't really any attributes of Joe's that you think "if only Nial McGinn had those attributes he'd be amazing" for example. You could look at Shinnie and say "if every player had his work ethic, aggression and leadership" then we could look for those in potential recruits. Joe is just ace at one-on-ones, shot stopping and dealing with crosses which are largely useless in the hands of Curtis Main.

Agreed. If you loan him to Saints, then they'll only be paying him a portion of his salary anyway. If we pay him off, we'd (roughly) have to pay the difference between what Saints will pay him and what we would be paying him for the next two years. Either way, the cost to get rid is still the same in January when it comes to the next decision point unless he performs well enough to get someone to pay a fee for him to cover the remainder of his contract. Get rid now Remaining salary____£100K (arbitrary figure for illustration) less Saints salary____ £50K Total cost of pay off___£50K Wait until Jan Remaining salary____________£75K less Saints salary____________£37.5K add salary subsidy until Jan____£12.5K Total cost of pay off__________£50K If we're convinced that all he needs is a loan move to get his confidence up and he'll return as a goalscoring legend then go for it. Otherwise, take the hit now and look forward with a new striker. The alternative is to retain him in the squad and have another year of him coming off the bench or starting with zero impact on games.

Exactly. I didn't even include Rapey McRapesonface or Arneson and a couple of others (Ash) that could have been on it. Good work!

Aye, you're right. Just the top ten worst signings then Seabass. I'll start: Zola Tate Mclachlan Parker Tansey Forrester Storey Morris Wylde Nwakali Edit: of course some of those weren't permanent. Replace McLachlan with Maynard (I'd erased him from my memory), Tate with Gleeson and Nwakali with Halford. Was Parker a loanee? If so, replace with £400K Stevie May.

Exactly. Seabass, edit the list to remove the loanees (unless then signed permanently like Logan). If you could also write a longer list of McInnes Worst Signings, that'd be great. Just when you have a spare minute.

Logan will have telt Lowe that the Tims are a bunch of scummy racist fucks and he'll take a huge paycut to join his beloved dandies.

Lewis. I think Shinnie was an excellent signing (as was McLean) due to the fact that I didn't think we'd get either of them, but they were also very easy signings that we knew could go directly into our first team and perform in the SPL. Ferguson has to be very high up the list because absolutely nobody expected him to be where he is now after signing him. He's a tremendous talent who'll only get better and I'm still very surprised at McInnes noticing his talent before anyone else. In terms of return on investment, I suspect he could be the one that sees the greatest return (in absolute terms, rather than in percentage as I expect Cosgrove will earn us 20 times what we paid for him).

Exactly. It might be quite good for the dons PR to have the first player to come out whilst playing in the SPL too.

But that is VAR's problem. If Willie Collum is Scotland's best ref then there are 5 other cunts that are significantly worse than him sitting in the VAR room when that fucker is on the pitch. It's systemically bad. It just doesn't work. The notion that you can only use VAR for clear and obvious errors is completely flawed too. As soon as VAR is called for when the Tims don't get a pen and then not called for when the Huns don't get a pen then the whole thing becomes a conspiracy because "who defines that a decision is a clear and obvious error? It then resolves none of the problems that it is supposedly designed to get around by replacing one controversy with another. You change it to a "X no of challenges" model then that number just keeps on increasing, the types of incident that can be reviewed get added to (a throw-in given the wrong way that leads to a goal) and an increase in the number of "false calls" used to waste time or just simply put pressure on a ref to overturn a decision that doesn't really need overturned. It'll be gamed as much as anything else. It's sky sports wankery.