RicoS321

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.

Aye, the only problem is that he has a nose bleed crossing the half way line. He's turned into an excellent midfielder again (he was playing well in the last 6 months with us), but he forgot how to take the ball forward in the process. He has the ability, but he'd need to re-learn it. Playing alongside guys like Flood meant that he had to curtail his movement for the betterment of the team. With the hun being able to splash out on 853 midfielders, I expect he'll have the opportunity to be more box-to-box than previously. It remains to be seen whether he can do that, he's always struggled with shooting. It's the same with his long range passing and his crossing, he canna kick the ball hard enough or whip it round. I think that prevents him from being an all round decent right back, and I expect Scotland will play a back 3 where he wouldn't fit in (he'd be shite as a wing back).

I think that there is good argument to say that Ryan Jack deserves a call up. McGregor obviously. I'm not sure who else could play? McRorie? Murphy? I think the argument is moot as they're riddled with foreigners.

Yep, I'm not convinced that "getting his players to work for him" is the best term either. Rather that he gets his players to remain loyal to him. And not in a Jimmy C "best mates" way either, there seems to be a distinct professionalism about the relationships within the club. Again we see another transfer go smoothly without gossip or leak. In terms of his management - in an administrative and directorial capacity - I think we've not seen anything as good since Ferguson. There is a very obvious loyalty and a strong discipline that can only come from respect for the man; I think it'd be very difficult to argue otherwise. However, he's missing the ability to turn that into big game motivation and being held back by his own fear of losing/lack of risk taking. I think that would need an entirely different person. There is a strong team mentality, but with that we seem to be losing individual thought and creativity (although GMS seems to have been given licence to try shit this season and so far that is paying off). This has led to hard-work and safe-play being given precedent over taking chances. It's a balance that McInnes has never managed to get right and it only really becomes obvious in the big games. It's clearly quite a delicate balance though as we see the gung-ho Lennon fuck it up again at the weekend against a team we would undoubtedly have beaten whilst at full strength. Our victory with a weakened team against Dundee is testament to McInnes' approach, but so is our draw against ten men the week before. His approach got us second in the league that nearly every other manager in the division would have struggled to match, but his reliance on loyalty lost us a semi final against Motherwell that several other managers would have got us through on the day. However this guy turns out, it'll be hard work for the team first, individual performance second. If he can't do the former then we'll never see the latter. For the former to work we need to see how he'll fit into our style and how he'll link up. We'll also have to address the massive issues in our central midfield or else he'll be hit with punts all day long. Until we sort out the midfield, I don't think we'll see anything from him and he'll be part of another 65th minute substitution but with May - unfortunately - replacing Anderson as the go-to (the most obvious area in which McInnes - and a lot of other managers - lacks).

I remember Kpedekpo deein audit for KPMG in the early century. He was a decent laugh. Gave up fitba entirely, didn't even play juniors or such like to keep his heed in. Played against him at fives from memory. Doesn't really count as someone who gave up playing early, more that he didn't make it. Gary MacDonald stopped playing in 2008 aged 26 after a spell at Oldham. Don't know if it was injury or whatever, but he just disappeared.

It's a very good point. At some point - and I'd have thought it is around the time you're considering spanking £300K on Eoin Doyle - you have to take stock and decide whether you're just signing a player because you absolutely need to rather than if they're any good or not. Hopefully more become available in January.

Not sure about this one. Specifically the loan element. We've done this quite a few times over the years and many times it hasn't worked. I suspect this is happening due to the various other targets not being available for whatever reason, so it's understandable. This is a massive position for us, and this guy needs to be good - and consistently good. Even players like Maddison dipped in form for us in the time that they were here and still had a lot to learn about the game. At 22, he should be reasonably well up to speed with the professional game though, so it's not completely like we're fattening up someone else's product at the expense of our own. A little bit more experience than Cosgrove and Anderson. Hopefully he'll do the business, although only 2 appearances since January is a little bit worrying for such an important signing. I think that we still need another midfielder. I'd hold off on getting a defender in and take the risk that we can cope until Hoban and McKenna are back. I think that with Logan only being out for another game will hopefully be something that we can cope with. No sense in wasting our time getting someone for a couple of appearances. Although if a good left back comes out of nowhere then maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing.

I think that they will have paid the loan back already. I expect that the Europa league will be closer to £10M in revenue given the size of Ibrox and dependent on the draw of course. I think it'll see them through to the end of the season. Either way, it saves them facing a huge problem quickly.

Not really. They had loans to last until season end. They make a huge chunk of money off season tickets (£10-15M). Historically they've spent that up front and then gone hunting for expensive loans come January. This season they've speculated enough to get them Europa League (you would assume) and so they'll be - for the first time - on a very good footing for the remainder of the season and into next. Over the next few years they'll have traded themselves into a position by which they can qualify for the Europa league every year without too much difficulty (very difficult draw aside).

Ha ha, I assume it's just a joke. It was certainly the most ridiculous person I could think of. Although when you wrote "phuq" spelled like that, I thought it reminded me of "plug" so it was subliminal. For what it's worth, I think he'd be the worst possible signing anyone could have ever thought of.

Is it just me that's concerned that we're going into the season with Ball as a starter every week in midfield (perhaps Hoban will replace him I suppose)? He's been okay in midfield (especially in the Burnley games) but he is lacking in the "comfortable on the ball" department. Gauld would be a good replacement for Christie, but I don't see him replacing the need for Ball in midfield. Edit: Is it Diamond? That'd be interesting....

I don't think it is view fortunately. I think his view is that it "can" take a player from another league setup longer to settle and that there are more similarities between our game and the english game that makes this less of a roulette. He'd have no problem with signing a foreigner who has been in the British leagues for example. I think that he'd be more likely to take a loanee from a foreign league if offered (like Hibs did with Kamberi) than make a full time signing due to the risk involved. It's all about risk, obviously. The important thing to note is that we'd be talking individuals that are offered to us on recommendation rather than us taking up scouting in country. As no-one as managed to come up with an example of a Scottish team that has/had a succesful scouting network outside of the UK, regularly returning players, then we have to assume that this is the correct approach. In terms of Snoyle, we're ignoring the silent evidence here. Snoyle came to us as a result of a tip off. As we drifted into what can be described as a more permanent Dutch network (jimmy's brither) we uncovered Touzani (decent), Daal, De Visscher, Bus as well as various other trialists. Apart from the fact that Snoyle was blatantly average (and for some reason gets held in high regard), he was also an anomoly in our largely unsuccesful foray into the Dutch market where we found that targets were basically amateurs. There's nothing one-dimensional to McInnes' approach, it's rational and fact-based. He has never ruled out foreigners, its just that the main target of our scouting network is the one where we have the most succesful return throughout the history of our football club outwith Scotland. Anyone outwith that scouting network, logically, will be based on a recommendation or a punt with little to lose (Uchechi, Chalali). There is probably an argument to say that we could go a little more international with our punts, but I think that the better approach would be not to bother at all.

Maribor and Apollon were our two chances to get to the group stages and we fucked it (or at least the ref did vs Maribor). I don't think folk realise just how much of a disaster it will be for the dons and the rest of Scottish fitba if the hun qualify for the group stages (which they will). That's a massive pot that will open a gap. We're heading directly towards the 2000-14 years again of helicopter Sundays and sideshows.

Good interview though. I hadn't realised that Clancy (I think it was Clancy) won't be reffing this weekend. I came away from the game thinking that the ref did well, got most decisions correct and kept up with play etc. Stubbs gets everything spot on in that interview, especially where he asks for some clarification. The lack of transparency is shocking. As a famous man once said: "who are these people?"

I thought MacLaren looked pap against us, and Kamberi was decent. Aussie caps are not widely relevant in my books. I call it the Zdrilic effect. We have £1M of DNA scam money to spend. We're about even in that regard. Although you're right about midfielders being more widely available. I think we'll struggle to get a striker better than Kamberi for £500K.