RicoS321

Well there's no Christian Ramirez thread on here, so it's probably not worth starting one. He's gone home to the US to "recharge his batteries" apparently. Who the fuck does that with 6 days left of the season? I'm guessing he won't be back. A shame in many ways, but we can't afford him for another season if he can't be relied upon when things aren't going well. So close to being ace.

Scott McKenna? Surely a loan spell at a lower Scottish division is on a par with cliftonville? I just assumed that there were other issues at play, like not liking the club or city or whatever. Or maybe an Ethan Ross type situation (who I'd have kept for another year or two as I thought he'd be better than McLennan etc) where the agent has been working behind the scenes. Either way, it suggests that Goodwin either has a good left sided centre back already agreed to sign, or that he genuinely thinks it's possible to turn Bates into a competent left sided player after a year of it not being the case. I'm hoping the former.

No chance. He's not nearly good enough on the ball. I mean, he can play in midfield, and he's not terrible there, but we should be aiming for a lot better in there. Ferguson needs a signed replacement. McRorie as backup if we make a cunt of it.

I mean, we're better than forest, aren't we?

That's it settled then, right back it is. I'll get on to Goodwin.

I've no idea to be honest, but I can definitely compare them! Comparing isn't the same as conflating (something politicians and journalists struggle to get their heads round). There are very few millionaires who got there without being willing to do shite that others would be unwilling to, Cormack could be one of them (I'm guessing that his line of work would allow for that, although it can be fairly sleazy). The point though, was that it doesn't really matter in the end, because if you're advocating anyone buys otherwise unaffordable success via a rich benefactor then there's yer sporting integrity up in smoke right there. The murderous dictator aspect is just an addition to that, that sort of detracts from the real issue.

Sheep shaggers is probably acceptable still, given that we're not actually all sheep shaggers (I'm speaking for you guys, I'm currently eyeing a couple out of my window as we speak). There is a crassness, as Slim suggests about singing about Dundee and Glasgow in terms of their relative poverty. I think it's fine to continue as is though, I doubt anyone actually gives a fuck. In a world where everything is filtered through the lens of social media, we have to be careful not to confuse some cunt virtue signalling on Twitter and actual loss of free speech. Nobody is stopping anyone else singing or doing anything, it's just simply a tweet that the BBC has afforded news coverage too. This person is opening a debate on the subject, and that's probably a good thing as long as it stays that way. The difficulty comes when there is a video circulated of someone singing "sign on", it goes viral and they end up losing their job in the ultimate irony. The lines are being blurred daily, and it won't be long before social media controls all boundaries of human interaction. It's a horrible thing we've created.

The problem with that question is that it suggests there is a moral high ground when injecting large sums of cash from any source into a club to gain financial advantage. If Cormack and friends chucked in £20M of cash to AFC to buy 13 new players and increase the staff budget greatly beyond our turnover, would that be okay because the money was "clean"? The overwhelming majority of rich people got there through unscrupulous behaviour, leveraging power, and always at the expense of others, there are just varying degrees of what you deem to be acceptable. For example, if Stewart Milne used his power and influence to lobby the government to relax energy efficiency standards on housing, locking in years of waste (to the detriment and expense of the homeowner) into every single new build solely to benefit the bottom line of his business, then that would add up to a fairly significant unethical practice (I'm not saying he did, for the record, I have no idea - just a hypothetical). The point is that by supporting Scottish fitba (and fitba generally) in its current form, we already support the idea that sport is actually just a function of money, so wouldn't we be (aren't we) being a little hypocritical by putting arbitrary barriers on the type of individual supplying that money? British born billionaires for British people I say. Bloody foreigners.

I think that's what Goodwin will do too. I'm just not totally sure if we need a dedicated player in there for that role against most teams. He's a bit willow flood in that regard, without the positional awareness to not be a hindrance to others. Not sure we'll see him there for the whole season. I actually think Bates would make a very good defensive midfielder in a 4-1-4-1 type format, but I don't think we'll see that either.

Agree with this, apart from perhaps the polvara bit. If we're not playing a back three, I don't see McRorie playing at the back, and I don't think he's good enough on the ball to play midfield. I'd have his energy and athleticism at right back no problem though. Just leaves us with a Ferguson replacement, bit I'm guessing Goodwin already has someone in mind.

Liverpool for £4M according to the record. Not surprising, I'm guessing there will be a lot of add-ons and sell-ons in there too. Hope he makes it, fantastic talent.

Considine motm

Aye, makes sense. I turned on at half time, so didn't see much of him. I have a feeling he might be away back home before long. Fuck. Good cross.

He looked like a nothing player in the minutes he's had so far, very little about him. That was based on about 20 minutes of course, so just a first impression. Has he been any good today? Goal!!!!

Michael Ruth, Tyler mykyta and the world beating left sided centre half that you promised me was ace. No

I disagree. I've not seen a player come through at pittodrie with as much potential (in the last thirty years anyway). He's better than Fraser, Jack and in a different league to McKenna. I'd say Tierney at the Tims was probably a good comparison. There is a huge void between potential and player of course, and a high percentage chance he won't make it. I can see what scouts at Liverpool would be seeing though, and it's not based on data (other than assists earlier in the season, I'm not sure his stats would be that good), it's the way he plays the game. There was a cross he put in at the weekend into a fantastic area that the striker nearly got on the end of. He put the ball in with pace, but he did it mid stride with barely any back lift at all and his head still up, the technique was just brilliant. He's just got class, very gifted indeed. I'm actually surprised more fans aren't raving about him. As you say, their existing fullback isn't someone that is going to be shifted easily, so it remains to be seen how Liverpool could convert potential into player without playing them. Also, skills and talent don't make a player on their own of course. Some of the most graceful skills I've seen in the last while at pittodrie came from Jet, who shows exactly how talent can be wasted (although he was missing some fundamental attributes to make it at the top too).

So no good young left sided centre back returning to the squad. That would have been ideal. A lot of pressure on getting that position right now too.

I'm guessing this will be on TV in the States, courtesy of both our clubs' US owners, billed as the massive lower 6 silver place showdown. Which it is. Huge game. If there's a bigger game in world fitba that day, I'd be very surprised.

It certainly is a conundrum. There are so many competing interests at play too. For me, he should be looking at Hickey's success at Bologna as a template. However, the issue will be one of cost, and I simply don't think a Bologna or the like will be able to afford him if there is any genuine interest from Liverpool. In that regard, what's best for him isn't necessarily what's best for AFC (we want the most money). That said, it depends how AFC view Ramsay. Is he a once in 30 year enigma, or is he the level of player we aim to churn out every few years? If it's the former, then we should take the long term view and accept less money now in the hope of more money later from a sell-on. That would send out the best message to players and other clubs that we are serious about developing the best. If he's a one-off (I think so) then we look to gain as much money now, and sell to the highest bidder. From Ramsay's perspective, it's a question of what he has to gain from being at Liverpool. If he's not getting a game, then he has to gain significantly from the training regime and training with better players. However, if he's immediately shipped out on loan then I'm guessing that there's little benefit derived for the player from the parent club. We've seen it hundreds of times in this country, where the big two snap up all the talent in the hope that they get the one that returns success. It's a pretty rancid business model, that doesn't put the player first and increases the inequality in the game. If they put a clear plan for him in place, I'm guessing he could weigh it up. As for staying at the dons, I don't really see it as beneficial for either party (unless he's loaned back to us). Next season is going to be another year of transition, with a lot of hit and miss on the transfer side of things. We're really not a stable, confident, club that can offer Ramsay a solid base to grow. Our defence is a shambles, and we'll likely have a new keeper. Midfield and up front will be renewed completely. There's really only Hayes that you'd class as a positive, professional, experienced role model (McRorie has that without the experience). Liverpool are interested in Ramsay because he has the ability to get there if things work out for him. I don't see us having the resources in place at the moment that will get him there unfortunately. I don't think Barron is at Ramsay's level of potential, and so we could definitely offer him the base to move on in a similar path to that of Kenny McLean or Scott McKenna. Ramsay's ceiling is way higher in my opinion (obviously, I shouldn't need to say it, there's a huge gap from current to potential player). Take the money and run.

I just checked, in the previous three league seasons (not this one, obviously) Considine gave away three pens (one for handball). Not really regular by any stretch.

Gallagher had a pish final season at Motherwell. You don't fluke your way into the national team, but there are lots of examples of players who just have a good season or so (18-24 months in Gallagher's case) and then live off that. I have a feeling Gallagher might be that guy. Bates was in purely because he played for the Huns and Hamburg and was expected to be good rather than based on performance. He's played more games for us this season than he's ever played in his career, but at 25 I'm hoping that he might fulfill his potential. I genuinely think most of his issues are to do with playing on the left. His body shape is just constantly wrong. He got easily skinned yesterday in a one on one because he had his weight on his wrong foot, setup as if he were facing a player on the opposite side. When he walks out of defence with the ball he keeps it between his feet to avoid taking it on his weaker left, which results in him having to hook his right foot round the ball or adjust his position and hurry his pass. It's so obvious, I'm surprised none of the coaching staff have forced it out of him. I think he could be half decent on the right side of defence. McRorie was honking on that side too for what it's worth. I'd let Gallagher leave and switch Bates right and let Turner battle it out for a place with somebody much better than Dunne.

That's not obvious at all, that's something you've convinced yourself is true but you're not backing up with evidence. Bates has given away 2 this season (Gallagher one). I doubt Considine has ever given away more than that in a season. Maybe in his first couple of seasons. The Wikipedia definition for the term gifting penalties actually had to be rewritten after Bates' disaster against utd, as they'd found the pinnacle of examples. You're right, we have no idea, but given Goodwin offered him a contract, it suggests he was deemed fit. I doubt he'd have lost much from his game in that short a space of time. His game has never been based on pace, it's not like he'd have to adapt. No player is guaranteed game time. What is likely to have been said, and correctly so, is that he's a better left centre back than the existing options and he should be ahead of them in the team. He should be in the team now. The problem I have (and I expect Andy had) is that both Bates and Gallagher will be expecting to be first team players, and with moving Considine on it suggests that is being granted. He's being overlooked for worse players quite simply.

You're going to have to show me the evidence on the point in bold. Pretty certain that's not true. Considine got his first Scotland caps after he was too slow to play left back. It wasn't an issue, just as it isn't for mulgrew and many others. To clarify, I'm not suggesting he should be playing every week, I think we should be signing a left sided centre half. The only points I'm making is that he's already better than the two centre backs we have on the left and he's a fantastic and safe player to have as a reliable squad member. Panda mentioned the youth lad playing in Ireland, so hopefully he can be the reliable squad member instead. I can see us playing Gallagher and Bates (probably shoehorning them into a three) next season in order to justify their wages. It's a crap situation. I'd like to see one, or both, released, but that would make the ditching of Considine even more perplexing.

Because they're really, really shite? Also, neither of them can actually play left side of defence. I didn't see any evidence of Considine slowing and declining pre injury, he started the season well and was doing fine. Plenty of defenders play in the SPFL until their late thirties, it's not difficult. Mulgrew just played 90 minutes in midfield for Utd today, there's nothing in Considine's history to suggest he wouldn't manage otherwise, and you're not providing any evidence of that either. Goodwin even offered him a contract. But the reason he's not playing is because it wouldn't look good, not because of ability (which is fine, the damage is already done). The problem is that we're stuck with Bates and Gallagher next season now, and if they're continued to be played as a partnership we'll do as badly as this season (Willie Miller and Michael Stewart also said as much after the game, it's obvious). The alternative is that we have either Bates or Gallagher on the bench, which I think will be terrible for squad harmony. Both are likely on large wages and will likely be on better wages than whoever comes in to replace one of them. Either that or we let one of them go in the summer, in which case we're adding another acquisition to a massive recruitment list which I think is stupid. We should be getting rid of one of them, it just makes much more sense having a good professional who's played 500 games for the club to challenge for the first team position rather than one of two very expensive failures.