RicoS321

The bit in bold is the only bit that I'm arguing here, and we're in agreement. That is the largest factor in determining the players valuation. That is why in the majority of cases a player who is paid more (whether that be at Bolton, the huns, gretna, darlington or the tims) will command a larger fee than those paid less. That is all that I am arguing and all I continue to argue. Wages set the baseline for any transfer fee. That is the argument. I don't know anything about John Stones but clearly Brown is an outlier. There was a huge scramble between the huns and tims to sign him with the huns assuming they had got him at one point. There was a large amount of money in the game at that point too, and Hibs youngsters were seen as a surefire bet. There hasn't been a transfer like it within the Scottish game since (maybe Craig Gordon, but he too was exceptional). As I said, the link between wages is the general rule, as can be proven by looking at the overwhelming majority of transfers. Back to the baseline fee part. The baseline for a Tim or a Hun will always be far greater than ours because of wages. Over and above the baseline, is where they pay for percieved exceptional talent. That's what we're looking at with McKenna. We've salaried him at (at a guess) a maximum of £1M over the next 4 years. That's his baseline. Three times that would be an achievement, five times that unlikely (I'm not saying impossible, just unlikely). What is likely is that we'll try and get a future sell-on as that could be massive. What is also likely is that the minute McKenna joins a championship club his value will rise as they are paying him a much larger salary. If he's ace for that club then in turn they will use that salary as a baseline for a sell on. Just as if McKenna was a Tim youth product, he'd be on £15K per week now and they'd be looking at more than £10M for him as they are Tierney (who is a better player also, which helps). They'd be looking at McKenna prices for MacGregor, Forrest etc. who aren't exceptional but are on highish salaries compared with McKenna.

You didn't consider that Windass had a contract until 2021 at a large (comparatively speaking - certainly double McKenna's) salary? I'm not making stuff up, I assumed this was an acknowledged fact that follows logic? You think that a buying club will accept perceived standing in the Scottish game as a benchmark for valuation? Do you think a player that is at Rangers or Celtic will accept £3K per week if the club are asking for £5M for them or would they be straight onto their agent arranging a massive salary increase if they don't move (in Windass' case)? I accept that there might be some uplift in value by being at a bigger club, but nobody is offering £1-2M more for Tavernier or Windass based on club reputation - why in the world would they do that when they're in a free market system and they can just by the next best Windass from some other club? It defies basic logic. Nor does it answer why any number of championship or league one teams can also command large fees for players who also happen to get paid larger salaries. Valuation is arrived at, it's not plucked out of the air (apart from Tommy Wright). Most transfers are not for players where there are no other similar available options - obviously when you reach the top end of the game then you occasionally get astronomical fees - so the notion that anyone would pay over the odds because "we are the people" or something is silly. Agents are involved, rough salary is known by both sides, players know their own value based on what they're being paid (otherwise they'd have asked for more) and above that baseline there are a few other factors based on how desperate either party is. This is completely evidenced by the general steadiness of fees in and around the Scottish and lower English leagues and is just a general function of any market based system. Nobody goes in wildly inflating prices, and fees are historically in line with wages unless someone is an absolute superstar or a rich club desperately wants an individual at any cost. We're talking about the median here, not any outliers, there are some obvious examples that flout the general rules.

Except that's nonsense, as outlined in what I posted above. Do you genuinely think that the huns and tims regularly command significant fees for players that we'd say our no better than average because clubs in England are stupid? Or is it a conspiracy? Or they're doing it because it's the fashionable thing to do (pay elevated fees) down South. A player is valued at what someone is willing to pay for them. If we had offered Maynard £20K for 5 years, then that is what we have valued him at because that was what we were willing to pay for him at the renewal of contract or purchase time. Whether or not somebody else is trying to buy him or not is irrelevant. But you missed the key part: there are two types of player, one that we want to keep and one that we don't. If we want to keep Maynard, then £5M is the minimum we'd expect a club to pay for him as that's what we are willing to invest on him. That value will reduce as the contract expires. If we don't want to keep Maynard, then we'd accept less than £5M in order to get that cost off our books. But your point doesn't work, because we're talking about players that parent teams do want, and so do other teams, which begins the bidding process. You also rarely get extreme examples like you mention precisely because transfers are wages linked (you don't want to pay someone significantly more than their peers).

But it is based on wages, that's the entire point. Tavernier has a contract that runs until 2021, which is three years. If he's on £15K per week (made up figure) then Rangers have already valued Tavernier at £2.25M. That is the value they have assigned to him based on their contract offer. There are two types of player. One that the parent club would like to keep (or is a first team player) and one that they don't want. Tavernier is a player that they want to keep as he plays every week. That means that the buying club will have to pay more than the £2.25M that Rangers are already contracted to pay him in order to get that player because the minimum £2.25M valuation has already been assigned to that player by Rangers' willingness to pay him that. How much more is the only sticking point here, and that's when potential, necessity to buy, necessity to sell, richness of the buying club etc all come in. I don't know who Goldson is, but I expect he's being paid X amount of money which is the value assigned to him by his parent club. McKenna will only have been assigned a value of ~£1M by AFC based on his current contract. They may have minimum transfer clauses etc to mitigate this, but that's what AFC are valuing him at based on their contract club wage structure. That he's got a 5 year contract, we have no desire to sell, no need to sell and the player seems happy enough, plus the fact that he has the potential to be worth siginificantly more in the future if developed correctly, then a high end of £3.5M would be possibly manageable. Unless I'm way off in what we're paying McKenna, or if they've worked in some sort of grading that pulls his salary up massively in a few years then I think that'd be about right. "Player X cost n, so Player Y most cost t" is not a formula that exists.

I think that's a little absurd. McKenna will not be going for £9M or anything like that. I've always said that £3.5M would be a very good offer for McKenna, and there's nothing happened since that'd change that. Surely McGinn's transfer fee has brought us down to earth a little on what can be expected? The good thing is that time is on our side, and we don't need to sell in this window. There's no bidding war from England (championship) so now is not a good time to sell. If he continues his form then we should expect bids in January. If the Tims put in a decent bid now (upward of £3M) then expect us to begin negotiations to get that higher. As CvB points out, the Rodgers exit strategy sounds plausible. That could be a decent thing for us (assuming we're selling, which in itself is not a good thing) as we can really pressure the bid. There is only so long that they can continue to miss out on targets without sending their support into hysterics. I say we hold them to £5M, just for a laugh.

I didn't give an assessment of Hoban, you did. You said he was a better right-footed left back than Considine. I'm saying that is a ridiculous conclusion to draw after one game where he was clearly worse than Considine was the following week by any objective measure. That's not a criticism, I think Hoban will do well in holding midfield or defensive cover as he looks to be a decent player.

I don't know, it all seemed a little after the event from them. We had similar with Fraser (not with a tribunal obviously), but everyone - quite rightly - was annoyed with AFC for not acting sooner. We clearly didn't realise we had a player on our hands, and then dicked about offering insulting development wages to a guy who was clearly going to be a first teamer. Everyone blamed the club (a few the player), and correctly so. It was a mistake, and the hope is that we've learned from that. Compare that with our handling of McKenna and it's night and day. The minute he showed first team promise we got him nailed down with a respectful offer on a long contract. Hamilton's entire business model is to promote youth and sell on, that they've made such an error is something that their fans should be holding their CEO to account for. The obvious, and only plausible, conclusion is that they didn't think they had a player on their hands like we did Fraser. The tribunal, it sounds, came to the only conclusion it good given player development and contract offers.

I think that your assessment of Hoban is based on your dislike of Considine rather than Hoban's strengths. Hoban was significantly poorer than Considine in the Burnley legs playing in the same position. Anyone at those games would agree. Not to be harsh on Hoban who was visibly playing on his wrong foot (his body shape was just weird on numerous occasion). You mention he gets exposed against the bigger teams, but that didn't happen once in the run in post-split. The reason? Because he was played at the left of the back four and sat on top of the winger. Every time last season in which he struggled was when he played left of a 3 or left of a five (for about 15 minutes), which was all pre-split games against the Huns and Tims and once against Hearts. We played to his weaknesses, it was atrocious tactics. It's the equivalent of playing Logan at centre half and wondering why he's not winning headers. He was great post split, and great against Burnley. Nobody in the entire world is blinded by the fact that he scored a hat-trick 2 years ago, that's just a weird thing to say.

Possibly, but he's clearly a better striker then anyone they'd likely afford. Perhaps he's incapable of doing the fitba and management at the same time, which is maybe not surprising. I have to admit, I think it's good to see a player wanting to continue as long as he can. Fair play to him*. * the dirty hun fuck etc.

I 100% disagree with this! The difference between Hoban and Considine in the first and second legs in the Burnley game was night and day, with Considine far superior. He bullied Lennon down there, as well as getting on the end of a couple of crosses and generally providing a far better balance. I'm surprised anyone would suggest playing a right footer ahead of him, and I'm certain McInnes definitely wouldn't. Considine has been consistently good for us for several seasons now and earned his place in the team by being above average every week. His performances in a back four are always good and his work rate and fitness are excellent. I don't get the "weak link" suggestion that's always pointed at him, in my opinion it's just lazy. Is he a better left back than Shinnie? No. A better defender I'd say, but it's obvious what Shinnie brings to that role that Considine doesn't. If we're sticking Shinnie at left back at every week then drop Considine, no questions asked (other than: "what the fuck is our midfield going to do?"). To suggest that we should drop him for some right-footed loanee from Watford who isn't any quicker than him and worse on the ball would just be crazy (and a little disrespectul). Considine is one of the best left backs in the league and it's obvious that wingers don't like playing against him as he gets right up their airses and is aggressive in the challenge. If we're going to replace him, then it has to be with someone as good as Shinnie or else it just isn't worth it. Considine gives something entirely different, and if you don't replace it with something good then you'll lose a lot. I'm not saying Considine is amazing, I'm saying that he's a hell of a lot better than most people give him credit for and should never be passed off as "the weak link" because he hasn't been that since he was a loon getting sent off against the tims. However, if we want to change the style of play siginificantly then there are obvious limitations to Considine's game. He's not a wing back in a five, and he's not a player that can play left of the back three. These are easily recognisable weaknesses that - inexplicably - McInnes ignored in several of the "big" games last season. Those two positions play into his weakness, which is speed on the turn. They allow a winger to get the run on him, which doesn't occur in the left of four where he can sit right on them. In a back three, you can simply switch McKenna and Considine with McKenna's additional pace allowing him to easily deal with the winger issue (as he's played for Scotland). If we're going to be playing a lot with a back five then I do think we need to look at the left wing back area or the centre midfield area. To me, the more obvious solution is to get a better centre midfielder than Gleeson or Ball and allow Shinnie to continue at left back, but I realise that type of midfielder doesn't grow on trees (neither that type of left back).

I don't think McKenna will be going anywhere in this window. I also think that we may have seen the last of our business. The trial of Wright through the middle was telling (in my opinion). I think that's going to be our "like a new signing" moment, and one I have no particular issue with. I think McInnes will have been concerned with Forrester's performances so far in that role and will have wanted cover, but I think he'll struggle to improve on Wright (unless Christie is released by the Tims and he decides to take a punt). With Logan back, if he's unsure about Gleeson then he can just shift Ball into midfield. We've got through the matches with Logan missing so I just can't see us bringing in another defender with McKenna and Hoban back soon.

Weird like. Some shite on the BBC on Friday about his departure from the Hun being the hardest moment in his life or some shite. I'd have sacked him for that pish as well, he's a manager he needs to lead by example and not be moaning about something that occurred at a different club. Strange one anyway though, I'd have thought he'd do okay given his general fitness and perceived (by me) professionalism. He's maybe an absolute cockpiece who the players hate. Management career over before it's started I'd have thought. No easy way back fae that.

I never knew that, interesting. They weren't in the booing mood yesterday, which is strange given how fuckin dire they were.

Why do you call them this? You're the only person I've seen/heard call them this, what's the story behind it? Not a criticism, just unsure of its roots.

Doesn't really work when they got the hardest tie in the round this time though does it?

Nah, I was right behind it, going about a ball circumference past but the keeper was right to be on the safe side as it was a close thing (although Lewis would have let it go, or actually probably just gathered it because he's ace). Speaking of Lewis, called into action once today in a one on one and you just knew he had it completely covered. Closed the space in a tenth of a second; just class. Agree about the Wright and Jess comparison although I'd probably put him at the same level today as Christie at the beginning of last season. Just need him to be given the opportunity to do it against Hibs, and hopefully in that central role too. It's easy to do it (play Wright and Ross etc) in the games that you expect to win, but you need to risks here and there in the bigger games too. We don't have to go wild, so retain McGinn in place of Ross, but definitely start Wright. Ball played well today, put in some excellent balls down the line so be interesting to see if he gets a slot in midfield once Logan returns to right back. At the moment I'd put him ahead of Gleeson.

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.