RicoS321

The good thing about him is that we don't have to amend our style of play to suit him. He'll slot nicely into the Rooney position. That gives us direct competition for Rooney and a chance to get him fit and scoring too, rather than trying to play him into form when he's off the boil. We have one striker role, we should be looking at two good strikers and a youth team backup. We need to ship one of Storey, Stockley or Maynard shortly and look to promote Mclennan or someone else fae the youths as bench-sitter. It would seem a much better way to control our playing budget.

Racist

Good stuff. That'll put the strikers thread to bed for a few weeks. There was no way Deek wasn't seeing what we all were. Shame he couldn't have got him in a few weeks ago, but understandable with PNE situation. Potentially good business. Should go straight in as he'll be fit.

May back on the cairds according to rumours. 300K. Not convinced, would rather have Moult, but can't complain. If he regains any of his saints form that'd be exactly what we're looking for.

Here's our strikers since McInnes came (and inherited): Maynard,Stockley,Storey,Church,Goodwillie,Parker,Zola,Vernon,Magennis,Burns,McGinn,Smith,Fallon(?) He inherited Vernon and Magennis (and ditched Fallon sharpish, so let's ignore him). Smith can probably be ignored as he didn't feature as striker often, neither Burns or McGinn Ever since that point, he's been trying to replace them two. Vernon was a finisher and Rooney immediately replaced him. Magennis was a battering ram who was decent in the air and fast. If we were to categorise them: Strikers only: Rooney, Vernon, Church Target men: Stockley, Zola, Magennis Quick or creative men: Maynard, Goodwillie, Parker, Storey Of that list, Rooney is the only stand out. Of those he inherited, Magennis and Vernon probably sit above any of those that have come after. Magennis is better than either Zola or Stockley. Vernon would have had a better return than any of the others and been more useful generally, probably. It shows us a couple of things. First is that the vast majority of our striker signings have been punts. We're operating in a market where we expect a high turnover of players for that role due to them not necessarily featuring every week and thus we budget for that role accordingly. Second is that we're not generating the youth challenge that we should be in this role. We should be looking to produce youth strikers at least as good as Storey, Parker, Zola etc. However it could be that we're just not giving our youngsters opportunity because we feel like we need to give these guys a chance. Overall, the signing policy for this role isn't working. We're taking punts on players that we're hoping we can fashion something out of. It's having a detrimental effect on youth (would anyone argue that giving Smith more game time than Parker, or Shankland more time than Goodwillie/Zola - even Stockley - would have had a huge effect on results?). It's also having an effect on each player that gets signed. We're experiencing that now with Storey and Maynard. Maynard is being given game time because Storey has already been deemed surplus to requirements. Each year, or half year, we're having to try to force a player who isn't good enough into some sort of form or role in the team. Repeatedly. Something has to change. We either give that same opportunity to a youngster (let's say McLennan) in order that we benefit long term (or not), or we up our budget, pool our resources and put some weight behind the importance of that position - for example, ditch Stockley and Storey (and Maynard in Jan) and get in Moult or another. Plodding along hoping we might get lucky doesn't suit McInnes' recruitment style or ability.

That's not it I don't think. I think he's pretty grateful to be here (or anywhere). Very much like Goodwillie, it's like he's spent so much time on the fringes that he's forgotten how to play the game (or specifically, forgotten how to play the position). He can still control a ball and make a pass if it's obvious, and occasionally do something good. You can see by the runs he makes, or doesn't make, that he's just not reading the game and understanding his role. Like Goodwillie, if we persist with him, there might be the odd game where things click for him and he regains a bit of the past player he perhaps was but for the most part he won't get it. I think Maynard is destined for part time fitba without a shite load of constant work and game time. Compare that to Rooney, who's off form. It's night and day. Rooney is still making the runs, he knows exactly what to do. He's just a yard off where he should be, making the run half a second too late. Just struggling with a bit of sharpness and a bit of fitness. He's 29, I've absolutely no doubt that he'll come good again.

As you were.

We've had an issue in the striker role for a season now. Rooney struggling with form and Stockley and Storey known quantities of pish. I like to make a snap judgement on a player online based on their first performance or so, cause that's what forums are for. So I'm laying it on the line and saying Maynard is shite at fitba. I'm right more than I've been wrong in the past about players, McGinn a notable exception, Taylor went on to be better than I gave him credit for. I'm always happy watching the dons though, and wouldn't boo a player. I don't dislike players due to perceived hun/timness and I dinna hold grudges and am quick to change my judgement on a player and accept that they just lose form (for example, I dinna accuse Reynolds of being past it, losing his legs or just shite when he's clearly performed quite well for the last 6 months just to back up a point that was made when he was off form). I'll very happily afford Maynard a full apology when he proves me wrong. But it's good fun to have an opinion on players. Better than being a happy clapper and saying that every dons player is ace. Like McLean. McLean is ace.

Richard Gordon "somewhat surprising, Rangers drawn away against Premiership opposition" Good stuff.

I think we can criticise them on an online forum though....

Where's the draw taking place, and how do we access it?

Aye. Worrying like, Maynard increasingly looking not up to it. Hopefully we get someone in before we face a decent team.

Good win. Sounded like a shite game. Well done though.

Good stuff McLean. Didn't hear much of him in the first, neither Maynard. Or Wright until he set up the goal. Hope we relax a little in the second and give them a tanking.

Doubt it'll be streaming. Unless some dandy is streaming it on their phone.

I pay only in Bitcoin and hand jobs. I never buy anything for as cheap as 50p. I don't think it's possible anymore. I dinna shop in supermarkets either.

I don't use a wallet. Wallets are 2004 shite.

Good initiative. Although I still think a phone app and QR scanned entry is required. Save carrying a card around all the time. Perhaps for those who are in town anyway and just fancy heading to the game but don't have the card with them. Or for the likes of me who'd rather not have to remember my season tickets each week.

Should be an interesting one tonight. I'm assuming it's not on RedTV or anywhere else? I'd go for the same team as you Piper, apart maybe switch McLean in for Tansey. Think we need to be more attacking if possible. I originally thought Storey should start, but given McInnes' interview comments on Sunday I reckon he'll be off before the windae closes. That means we absolutely need Maynard to get up to speed, and so perhaps we give him a start like you say.

Aye, it absolutely isn't Aberdeen. It's over 6.5 miles from the fuckin train station. It's only half a mile closer than Portlethen, which isnae in Aberdeen either.

As reigning champion, I'll unfurl the flag with a guess of 78 points. Positive as fuck.

Fuck that, with Rooney we'd injured it'd take us days to score one.

Who knows with JC like. Remember hearing the interview at the time, it was part of a longer interview where he did his usual shite about knowing why naebody likes him. Cosgrove was great in that interview, just coaching Jimmy along to spill the beans. The involvement with the BoS and Rangers is very sinister and very unreported and not investigated (shocker). There's every reason to assume that BOS, were loaning to Rangers at a time when they were calling in loans form their direct competitors (including Aberdeen).

Fair doos min, but at least quote his whole sentence if you're going to be hold people to a certain standard, otherwise you undermine your own comments. Here: Seems to me like he meant No Kingsford, hence why he mentioned them earlier in the sentence. In fact, in that sentence, he's clearly being critical of the form of their objection.

A pretty good point 100%AK. Garlogie, I believe he was referring to the No group's argument rather than the whole of Westhill when you read the sentence back. It does seem like there's a lack of movement by AFC to address the issues raised. There is still plenty of time of course, and perhaps there's some tactic being deployed where any measures being taken will be revealed late on in the process to try and prevent any negative case being outlined before the decision meeting. Alternatively, AFC believe that their existing plan is a goer and they don't need to present any further mitigation of issues? That would seem a little reckless. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the concerns (transport etc) are completely genuine, and need a solution from AFC for the sake of its supporters.