RicoS321

Didn't really take his opportunity. Decent, but nae great, but nae shite either. Better than Forrester I'd say though. We were ace though, and they were gash. Some great movement in and around the box and good attacking play. Wright was really good and has to start in that role next week. May made a lot of good runs and worked hard, GMS excellent, the back four very good and Ferguson made some great passes. Gleeson moved the ball about well, although I'd like to see a bit more movement from him left and right when they've got the ball, but an improvement. Forrester wasn't great when he came on for Ross who was better but nae brilliant (although looks to have beefed up significantly). Anderson looked decent, definitely got an eye for goal. Hit a decent volley (going wide) that May or Cosgrove would have tried to control and would thus have, inevitably, lost the opportunity - great instincts. MacLennan looked okay too, with little time to do much. Difficult to gain any insight today though as they were fucking horrendous. A lot to think about for McInnes for next week, as we were very slick at times today. If anything comes from it, it has to be Wright playing through the middle again. They couldn't handle him, and he supported May really well. I hope we don't revert to type.

There was no comparison, people were simply discussing it, there's a difference. I see this a lot in political discussion these days, people mistaking comparison with conflation, it's frustrating. Like you can't use examples to illustrate any point without being accused of invalid argument or, worse, having offending someone. It's completely valid to compare Arsenal's experience in moving from an old historic ground to us moving from an old historic ground. It is not valid to discuss the problems of building a 90,000 seater stadium. There are possibly valid comparisons with Arsenal building a ground designed for the corporate fan and what we're doing (I've no idea). Basically anything that doesn't talk as if we have an endless pot of cash and a massive support that requires a giant stadium is valid for comparison. There are very valid comparisons to be made and certainly lessons to be learned. We're not building the Madjeski, so why the comparison I don't know.

I think that is an incredibly harsh view of Hayes' last couple of (at least) seasons with us. His work rate was insane, and he nearly always offered a threat. When he was struggling to beat a man he never gave up and never gave the player time in defence or attack. It's why I don't think the Tims will offer him to anyone, he'll be a reliable member of their squad who'll fill a hole whenever called upon.

They don't contain player salaries though. Just some/all directors.

We don't need to say anything because there are reasonably clear guidelines which the panel will look at. They will not respond to shitey paper talk or base their decisions on what Hamilton rep said in the Sun. There is no conspiracy either way (if anything the conspiracy would likely favour us as the bigger team), they'll base the value on development cost (as per the rules) and Hamilton's offer to the player in writing and any offers they received in writing prior to our signing him. It's absurd that any discussions are even happening in public, I'm not sure what Hamilton think they'll gain.

But it isn't more than that. In the same way as B&Q isn't more than a shop just because there's a burger van next door, or the Stirling services aren't still shite because they've got a Starbucks. Soulless doesn't mean lacking character and individuality, those are architectural qualities of which Kingsford may or may not possess (I have no idea). Soulless is about meaning and lacking of human qualities. That's the entire point. Driving somewhere, getting out, doing your activity, driving home again - that's where the soullessness comes from. No matter who busy Portlethen Asda is, it's entirely soulless and Kingsford is Portlethen Asda in all but the signage. That's a very partisan view of the process, the club had years to get Loirston sorted if they'd wanted to. The council offered several other sites which were discounted because we "needed" a 25hectare/acre (can't remember which - shitey unit of measure anyway) site. Kings Links fell into that category. The club deliberately stipulated a size that they knew would be too big in order to back up their planning application - they had already decided on Kingsford. There is zero requirement for training and stadium together, with only marginal benefit that could easily be discounted. But you're right, it's beside the point, they gave the planning because that was what was put forward, which is all the council are required to do. Prime four does not bring money into the city. Have you been there or worked there? Nearly every single company that's there could have located in the city centre. It's a commuter unit dressed as an industrial estate. You drive there, and drive home, bringing your sandwiches (or use the village or Entier's "Fresh" cafe (it's not bad actually)). It's exactly what Kingsford is, the perfect example. It's a self-contained unit designed not to integrate with anything else, built in conjunction with no-one for the benefit of only itself. It's like a Stewart Milne housing development. A self-contained pre-designed entity plonked in whichever location would have them. To compare it the city of Rome thing is, you would surely admit, ridiculous? First, the club are behind the entire Rome development (like AFC are) not the council. It's the equivalent of Trump's Balmedie "resort". It has three rail links. Let's not be stupid here, the two aren't remotely comparable and if that's what you're hoping for then lift your head for a second and look at the Kingsford location. The council have their hands tied here even if they wanted to "maximise" the development. They have no room to develop on the Westhill side, outside the city boundary. It's on green belt land, with privately owned green belt land either side. Not far off, there's a massive road. The stretch of road Kingsford is on is already overwhelmed at peak times, adding more housing or anything else would require completely new infrastructure (and would face years of planning). They can't bring the city out to the ground over time, because it's on the wrong side of the road that is being built to go round the city. Any development that could occur would be tiny due to lack of space. It would be utterly unserved by the city and nobody from the city would ever consider going there. By any logical viewpoint, anything beyond the bypass isn't really Aberdeen and it wouldn't surprise me if boundaries were re-drawn in the future. It's absurd that we've only just built a bypass after 30 years and already AFC have tried to shift the city outwith it. I know you're trying to be positive about it, and I fully understand that, but take a good serious look at the Kingsford location. Look at what surrounds it, look at what doesn't surround it and look at it's position in relation to the city and how it integrates. Point out to me where you think development could occur at a scale that would really make a difference, and really bring Kingsford into the city and make it a part of the city. The sort of development that will make Kingsford more than just a decade long succesful stadium. One that can suffer the Paterson years and the McGhee years and still garner a full house 115 years later. By any objective measure, there is nothing else there and there never will be. By any objective measure, it's not in Aberdeen; the bypass boundary has been drawn. Take a good hard look at that location. It's so short-termist it's unreal. Tell me what I'm missing about Kingsford that makes it a hidden gem. There's more to a ground than the ground itself - that's what we should take from that article that you posted. Kingsford is 100% the ground itself - there is nothing else. I must be missing something? Surely to fuck we're not moving because "oh well, it's handy for the bypass"? I think I need enlightened, there can't be this much support for it if it is as fucking stupid as I think it is (it seems to get worse everytime I look at it).

I'd very much hope they can't. They could possibly get fed info by agents, but I'd take that with a huge pinch of salt.

How do you know any of this?

"AFC, buzzing Monday to Sunday". Come on min, that's manufactured pish. It isn't Aberdeen's home and it won't be if those are the plans. That's not sustainable in the slightest, nobody has any reason to go to the middle of nowhere in their car for a coffee and memorial garden in memory of something that existed somewhere else. If that was viable, they'd have had a dons coffee shop and museum where the broadhill is 15 years ago. They'll add a coffee shop when building the stadium because it's easy to do but it's not going to be raking it in due to lack of footfall. The reason St Johnstone, and Pittodrie, have just a shop and ticket office is because that's what people go to those places to use during the midweek (less and less so with online purchasing). Hmmm, I'm not sure whether you're joking or not? That will be nothing like AFC's proposal; the exact opposite. Throwing in the "£50m" as if we should ultimately bow to the mention of money. The amount of money is completely irrelevant (also, it's fuck all), it's being used to purchase/build an asset for AFC, nothing else. The council do not owe AFC anything. If they've built the ground in a place that's unsuitable for surrounding development and that doesn't tie in with future development of the city then it's entirely AFC's fault. They didn't involve the council, they acted independently and they put it in a shite location as they're entitled to do. The council's "vision" shouldn't incorporate AFC's lack of vision. They've built in green belt fucking land, at the opposite side of the city bypass (the clue is in the fucking name) from the actual city itself. Do you genuinely believe that there will be further useful development between Westhill and the AWPR that will positively affect the stadium? Do you think AFC think that? I understand your enthusiasm, but I genuinely think it's misplaced. I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. The stadium, coffee shop etc is it. That's the development.

He's out of contract in May. If the tims let him go then we pay a signing on fee of £100K and offer him £3K per week.

Given his age, as TheDeeDon points out, do you think that it is because he's the best suited? I don't think it's pandering on a ridiculous level mind you, just seems a little bit forced. For what it's worth, I'd like to see Eddie Murphy given the opportunity. He was excellent in Police Academy with those sound effect vocals he used to do. Classic Murphy. I think he'd bring something to the role.

I think he'd be a great signing on a permanent deal. He faded last season, and I thought he struggled to develop a good playing relationship with McGinn for some reason, but I think that he's still a good player with the ability to pull something from nowhere.

I hope he isn't the next Bond. Just to wind folk up really. They've made a thing out of something that didn't need to be and I think that it's a shame. Just make Elba the next Bond, don't build it up like it's some sort of breakthrough moment for black people or - in reverse - some sort of glass-ceiling that subconscious racism was preventing from happening. People saying "I think it would be great if one day there could be a black James Bond" are probably as much a part of the problem as those outraged by it. Just let things happen and people make decisions without influence. He's an actor who seems to be in the right mould to play James Bond, so get it done and let's see him in some films. The "celebration" behind it just holds things back in my opinion, it makes decisions like these obligatory and unnatural and subsequently not progressive. It just all seems a bit contrived. It takes away from his suitability for the role I think. Maybe it has to be this way, I'm not sure.

Fair doos But why? Surely it's a forum and the debate over whether a new signing is good enough, what our first impressions are and how they fit into the team (or not) is exactly what we should be doing? I'm not saying he's a dick who we should start booing. I shouldn't even have to caveat with the fact that it's early on and far too early to judge the guy because that should be blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain, Moreover, my thoughts on that are utterly irrelevant because it's a simple fact that its far too early to judge him regardless of what I say - isn't that obvious? The problem is that you quoted my post and yet you still haven't addressed its central point of "where do you see him fitting in and in what formation?". You're basically saying that I shouldn't begin to form an opinion, is that correct? You're suggesting that there are "keyboard warriors out there who seem to take issue with anyone who does not share their point of view" but you don't back that up with anything. You're not "not sharing my point of view" you're telling me not to have one, you must notice the important difference here? If you said: "I think you're wrong about Gleeson, he put in an excellent through ball for Ferguson against the hun (he did) and I think that we could see more of that if we had Shinnie in there to give him more time on the ball", I'd have seen your point. Why not share your thoughts on Gleeson and tell us where you think his strengths are and how you think he'll fit into a McInnes eleven? You'd get far more support on here for putting forward the positives than I would putting across the negatives, so you'd be winning the argument instead of not even having one. For balance, I'm still all for May getting a regular game because I think that we might still be able to turn his career around (and I wasn't that please by his signing either). I'm not trying to be a dick by arguing with you on this, it's just I get a bit fed up of being told to "get behind the team" (I've had a season ticket for over 20 years and I don't remember ever booing) or other such nonsense on a forum. This is the place for discussion and disagreement, that's its purpose. I'll be very much behind Gleeson at the weekend.

A decent read, cheers Dunty. I'm not sure where Aberdeen's stadium fits in to it in a positive way? Whilst it's not entirely relevant to Scottish fitba given the disparity in funds it certainly gives food for thought. Dunty, you are for the new stadium, when you read this does it not make you concerned about the move? If we go on the examples in the article it's very clear that we are ripping the heart out of the club by moving out of the city (I didn't need an article to tell me that). That leaves a few options: The first is that we re-create that heart by creating something phenomenal - a really good design that alleviates all the other problems because the design in itself is the heart and the attraction. Does anyone seriously believe that's what will be done, or believe that's possible? The second is that the cooncil come up with a new city plan. We extend the city out and put the stadium at the heart of it in terms of access and visibility. We bring the city to the stadium as such. Folk will say that's bound to happen anyway, and it possibly will, but it needs to be deliberate and it needs to be integrated and planned. Not some Killie ground surrounded by housing estates (which is what will happen), but surrounded by community and other stuff that attracts people toward it. We've gone out on a whim with no support and no integration. We've treated the club like an individual rather than part of something bigger and I think that we still have time to address that. The third option is to completely re-define the club. Change it's identity completely. Perhaps not as full on as a name change, but certainly a change of focus. Creating the idea of an Aberdeenshire FC (again, don't call it that if you don't want) would be more apt in the proposed location. That's what this new stadium caters to, so lets not pretend it doesn't and actively pursue that goal if that's what we're doing as part of our strategy (is there a strategy?). Westhill isn't in the city, so lets stop fannying about pretending it is and pretending that in some way this club and location is representative of the city. A new start with a new identity is what we're proposing, solet's not lie about it and embrace it. If that means a clean cut off for existing fans then so be it. I don't think people are really thinking about this move at all. Certainly not beyond the first decade of its existence. Saying that "we need to do something" doesn't cut it anymore, it's simply not true nor does it help.

Donkey journeymen aren't getting a start ahead of him though. They're coming off the bench instead of him and that's where I have the issue. Our starting two of McGinn and GMS are currently better than Wright and he shouldn't be starting the majority of games (it doesn't really matter if others think otherwise for the purposes of the point). I am not suggesting strategies and targets when it comes to player selections, I'm suggesting strategies and targets when it comes to squad building. There's a good argument to say that we've over-signed by one in midfield which will prevent Campbell getting game time unless he goes out on loan (which is absolutely fine, but we should do one or the other not keep him just in case). Last year we over-signed in the wide areas with McGinn returning and so Wright should have gone out on loan. McInnes is cautious and prefers experience over youth, so by restricting him at a strategic level he is forced to face that caution head on. Yep, I think you might be right. As I said above, if he faces that cautious approach then we can judge him on his abilites. Over the last few years (perhaps not last season) we've bought a succesful team. We've had enough depth on those purchases that we've afforded our way into second place each year. McInnes hasn't had to use youth so he hasn't done it. In a game we're he's judged on results that's no surprise as the most pragmatic and safe approach - that has returned second place each year - has proved effective. I've not seen him in a situation like the one we face this season so I don't know how he'll approach it. It's not as easy to beat all the other teams anymore, so he's really going to have to shake things up. The way we finished last season was a positive start with reasonably risky moves such as throwing in Ball and Cosgrove showing great success. Second place would be a phenomenal achievement this season (it was impressive last season) as ~£8M of spending by the hun doesn't buy you nothing. It's a whole different league of spending to us and we simply cannot afford to buy a manager who could reverse those odds. It's now where McInnes has to give the fans more because when we miss out on second place something needs to replace it. I think that the succesful introduction of youth would be a great start.

Did you put it in writing before jinkjoe mentioned it though? Otherwise it doesn't count.

If you go down five posts from the one you quoted you'll see the clarification. Although I expect you know that and were just trying to catch me out. Otherwise you'd have written the response on the actual thread. Or at least quoted me on this thread instead of replying as if it was more than just me who had been making negative comments. As I said, nobody is writing anyone off because it's far too early for that. Just making opinions on performance to date. In terms of the quote you just put up, it's a genuine question not really about his ability but his role. If you can enlighten us with your opinion rather than telling folk not to have one, then that'd be a start.

Did you not read the part where I said: "I know, I know, I'm just using him as an example"? I'm the only person that's put forward my negative opinion on Gleeson, and on every single occasion I've caveated the comment with something along the lines of "obviously it's very early days". Nobody has written Gleeson off on this forum. Can people read through comments first before putting up arguments against things that have not happened?

I think the point is that we don't know as we don't see the young players' attitudes in training. It's useless using Alex Ferguson or some other acclaimed fictional/non-fictional coach as an example. Managers are no different to players, and very capable ones are not remotely within our budget. We should be looking at other managers in our division and the promotion of youth within their ranks and the success of that as a barometer of McInnes' performance. We have absolutely no how he chooses to talk to the youngsters, and it could very well be the case that they are not responding to the challenge set because of their own unwillingness to put in the extra effort. Certainly McKenna hold McInnes in high regard and has benefitted from his coaching to the extent he signed a new deal. Hamilton would probably be the best example. That is somewhere where the entire club is setup as a mechanism through which to promote from within. That's their philosophy and their cost base. We could do that, but we'd sacrifice second place obviously. Are there any clubs with a derivative of that model that are producing more than 1-2 players for every batch of youngsters? I noticed Cochrane playing for Hearts colts v County last night for example, a player that they thought would be amazing since Levein gave him his first start. Are there any players at any team in the SPL that have had similar success stories like McKenna recently? Are any of the top 6 playing their youngsters every week (more than two let's say)? My criticism of McInnes is that there are minutes where he could have played a youngster and he hasn't. That's usually because we've had a squad that required that other (shite) senior players were given priority to keep the entire squad happy or to keep their hand in whilst not playing every week so they're ready when needed. I think that the club needs to enforce that strategy though if that's what our target is. Make sure that there are no fillers. For example, I thought that Dean Campbell looks like a better player so far than Gleeson (I know, I know, I'm just using him as an example). If it turns out that Gleeson isn't going to make it here after a decent run of opportunities, will he continue to be given minutes at Campbell's expense? I think he would, and I think that is where McInnes falls down (May at Anderson's expense will be another). The wasted minutes on Maynard were a huge frustration when he should have been ditched (I'd have re-sold him before the window closed cause he was so obviously fucking shite). We're wasting time on a player that we know wouldn't improve. The approach on Frank Ross, to me, was the correct one. He wasn't ready and 6 months of playing at a decent level makes him more ready. The only thing I'd add is that the same should have been afforded to Wright; 22 minutes from January was scandalous. However, he may have been being a dick or something that we're not party to; that's the difficulty of judging. I think the club needs a strategy and a set of targets. Something that they can hold McInnes to account for. His strategy is to make sure nothing gets in the way of a 1-0 victory, so no risks will be taken, because he'll lose his job if results don't go. The club needs to force the issue if it sees youth development as a function of our club.

I think it is also based on the amount they have offered to retain the player - in writing - at the time of (AFCs) purchase. Plus development costs. For example, if they have offered him a 4 year deal at £1,500K per week (£300K approx total) we'd be liable for some or all of that. That's what they've valued him at and so we shouldn't be expected to pay significantly higher than that at tribunal with development costs added. That's certainly my understanding anyway, but I could be wrong.

Zola, Parker, Monakana I think the point is that a foreigner usually means a player signed from a foreign club - so Mulumbu would be well within our existing signing policy.

It pays for the dons. It may not if you're St Johnstone or someone who's crowds might not mitigate travel costs. It was the difference in us finishing second every year and not as we were able to outspend everyone else in wages. It will be the difference between us and the huns finishing second for the foreseeable future (they'll get €3.26M if they reach the group stages in prize money alone). From UEFA for 2018:

Absolutely. I'm just giving my early opinions on both based on our previous style of play, likely style this season and what is required of SPL players. I'm not one to get on folks' backs and will admit I'm wrong when/if things start to change. I think it's good to put your neck on the line early doors and take the flak when you're shown to be completely wrong (Taylor wasn't as bad as I first accused him for example, Tansey, Storey, Maynard all proved me right). I'd say I'm right more often than not based on early predictions. I'm going on Gleeson's visible attributes to date, and I don't see how they fit into an SPL team at our level playing the way we are likely to. I see a place for Forrester in attacking midfield if he can get up to speed. I agree with LA Don in that we'll see more of the two up front being used this season perhaps May and Wilson), but I don't see that Gleeson will manage that 1 of a 2 in the SPL midfield - I think we'll get overrun. If we're going back 3, I think that Forrester, Shinnie and Ferguson would be far more complimentary of one another. If we're going 4-1-4-1 then it's Ball all day long. I think Gleeson will be a sub after a period of starts. What I'm trying to say is, I fucking hate Gleeson.

I think that not having had much game time is more of a worry. He's had the entire pre-season like anyone else. The reason he's not had much game time is that he's seen as being either not good enough, or we didn't require him for a particular game. I could understand us not needing him in the Burnley games, and perhaps even the hun game and I suppose we were trying out a front 2 to, logically, his detriment at the weekend so maybe there's some strength in that argument. My first impressions were that he was a lightweight fanny who didn't track back enough to make him worthwhile - a shite Ryan Christie. As for Gleeson, I'm not even sure what he's supposed to do? He can't perform the sitting role that Ball/Hoban did effectively against Burnley and in the "bigger" games. He doesn't have the passing range and coverage of Ferguson to provide even part of the McLean role. He doesn't have the engine and drive of Shinnie. He doesn't seem to be a number 10. He seems to have a serious case of chrisclarkitis or, at best, robmilsomsyndrome. Again, he got a decent (if slightly hampered with injury) pre-season, so I don't know what we're waiting for. He needs to get his finger out his hoop, because it's the basics of "running about" that he's not doing.