RicoS321

With a director of football I said. My assumption would be that the director of football saw enough in Glass to appoint him manager and would know better than me. If we appointed a manager first, then DOF, I'd be extremely concerned (unless it was just a timing thing).

He also missed the fact that St Mirren have also been successful in recruitment this season, more so than Rangers I'd say. If he believes they haven't been successful then it contradicts his position on Goodwin. You can bet yer airse that Gerrard isn't doing the recruiting too, which is how it should be. He should be criticising AFC for the recruitment and McInnes for the management of the poor recruits. As for the bit about third place every year, trophies and challenging the old firm, those are the strategic goals of the board, so it's right that we aspire to that. However, it's also right that Hibs and hearts have those same aspirations as our budgets are roughly the same. If our recruitment isn't spot on or our injuries too unfortunate then we simply don't have the depth to guarantee third every year. What should be clear to you, though, is that McInnes was given every opportunity to maintain that strategic target and failed to work towards that in three consecutive seasons. Just not quite good enough.

Yep, nae bad McMaster. It's very, very simple to talk like that though, and a whole different thing to put it into action. No attempt to even discuss the absolute gulf in finances between McMaster's days and now doesn't help his case. McInnes deserved the opportunity to try and improve on his 16/17 high point, and he failed. I agree with his assessment on Goodwin too, but he hasn't had a meagre budget at st Mirren, he's been backed well enough to get him into the top six. He's been very successful in the transfer market so far. For me, he's the best of the names I've heard mentioned.

I've no idea, I wouldn't touch him with a barge pole.

Good post. However, the quality of information is largely irrelevant, because the dons are unlikely to be signing that calibre of player. It's also the type of information gathering that you would want the club to be doing through a network of scouts, it's not really the skill of a manager, which may or may not be a skillset Maloney has. To be honest, that type of scouting analysis work I'd far rather was done by a fixed team reporting to the manager like Belgium have done. The last thing we need is a manager coming in signing their own players (within reason, of course), because that route will always be out of date after 12-18 months. We need a proper structured scouting process with specified targets of success with a goal of getting a 60% strike rate in the transfer market. We've been way below that for years and it shouldn't have been McInnes' job to fix that. The manager should have a veto on recruitment, instruction on the position required and the ability to suggest targets in our league for further scouting, but he shouldn't be providing the analysis. Greg fucking Tansey looked good against us sometimes, but our scouts should have been able to provide analysis that showed his workrate wasn't there and offered better. They should have been watching him in twenty games to McInnes' three. Signings should be done on consensus. I'd that's already happening then we need to do it far better.

I completely agree (although dof plus Glass would be acceptable). However if he were being touted without the Atlanta connection, folk would be describing it as an interesting, left-field suggestion worthy of merit. As always, fan reaction is rarely based on actual ability.

Right, okay. I'm not advocating Goodwin, I'm suggesting he's better - or certainly less risky - than the other names mentioned. You do realise that you're asking for quite a lot? Remember, if we're looking at league one in England for our players, then we're nae going to be signing a manager who's having great success in any top league in most of Europe. It's a bit like when we sign a player. You're either looking for someone who's had success previously, but hasn't for some time, maybe had some down time or whatever (call it the Bryson type appointment) and is looking for a way back in. Someone who's up and coming at a team lower than us in Scotland like Goodwin (the Kenny McLean equivalent), who we've caught just at the right moment in their career before bigger clubs take a risk. Someone doing similar to Goodwin in the European leagues, second tier probably who wants a bit of publicity in the UK and has so far flown under the radar (unlikely in today's market). Someone who's a number two, untested at managerial level, like Maloney who has played for some good teams and is looking for their first opportunity. I don't really buy into the experience of big matches personally, all teams have big matches, they're just relative. No manager worth their salt treats them any differently. It's the sort of thing the scum say when they sign a player or manager "....what it takes to play for Rangers/Celtic.." pish. It's fairly meaningless. Personally, I'd like us to get a manager who's good enough to be attracting attention from other clubs in a couple of years.

It was Pressley who was the boyhood dandy though. Foster has always been a hun, so it was fair enough for him to go.

I'm surprised at foster to be honest, he's got a bit more of a brain than most. I don't think even McInnes will genuinely believe he deserved much more time. There are very few businesses where a manager will be kept indefinitely if deserving of the sack, it's quite a bizarre notion really. I could understand if they were saying he should be given more time to turn it around (they'd be wrong), but to say that we should keep an underperforming member of staff because you might employ a shitter one is idiotic.

Yes, it's clear to see the gap between now and 2017, which also makes it easy to see how small changes in personnel can have a big impact at our level (nobody's suggesting McInnes should still be here). It's not like McInnes gave up, or tried to play worse, it was purely down to poor signings (and an inability to change things in a game), which is a problem we've seen our managers and hearts and Hibs managers have at various points over the years. McInnes actually got a good points return on some pish signings (usually by playing turgid fitba). I'm massively concerned about our ability to recruit players as a club, and I don't think a new manager will solve that. A temporary uptick as the new guy brings in folk he knows from recent employment perhaps. I'd like to think that Cormack only has to make one good appointment and he'd heavily lean on that director of football to appoint a manager. I'd prefer to see that approach, I don't think we've got the football knowledge in house - or at Atlanta - to make a decent appointment.

I'm finding it really difficult not to suggest going for Derek McInnes when I see some of these names being suggested. It's actually a really difficult process, I'm glad I'm not having to do it! I don't think it was the wrong decision to bin McInnes, but there a lot of managers out there who aren't an improvement. Not sure I've seen a name yet that I think would comfortably improve us in a sustained way. Perhaps the timing of this Europa change next year will work in our favour here.

Does the team managed have any bearing on the ability of the manager? They have to start somewhere. Goodwin is already more experienced and lower risk than glass, Maloney, Fletcher etc. Is a successful manager at a lower club better than a failure at a bigger club, like Lambert? I'd say so. If we are going for an experienced manager, then he's someone that will have failed elsewhere or else he's out of our budget. The question is whether or not managing at a bigger club teaches you things that a smaller club wouldn't (that isn't general knowledge, like some of the sport science things), and are those things even applicable to the dons, more than say getting by on a tight budget that you'd learn at a smaller club? Also, when we talk about inspiring the fans with the next appointment, does that have any bearing on how good the manager is? Fletcher would inspire the fans, but he could be absolute horse shit as a manager. As far as I can see, the two have absolutely no link. Inspire often doesn't mean inspire either, it can usually be substituted for unusual/different/unexpected, which are not the same thing. I expect many of us were more excited by the signing of Zola/Gleeson/Forrester/Maynard than Ferguson, but it had zero correlation to ability. I'd say that Goodwin is as good as any other name I've heard so far, because I think he's good at managing football teams (I thought so when he was with Alloa too). I have zero idea about any of the other names suggested, apart from proven pish like Lambert.

Agreed. He's one of the most uninspiring candidates in the history of football. I also don't think he's been very successful as a manager.

He said that he was just having a laugh with Jim White and he doesn't know at all. Maloney's a Tim I think, but obviously grew up here. He's a bit small to make it in management too. To be honest, if we're going down the Glass or Maloney route with director of football, I'd think Robson would be just as good a shout. I'm not saying that would be my preferred option.

Aye, but he scored the winner against the Huns in 98. Header, too. Great player.

Aye, that about sums it up stooge. Harsh on Cosgrove perhaps! Wilson was actually given as many starts as Cosgrove before he went on his scoring run. One of the other persistent issues with McInnes was that every season he would dick about forever trying to find his best team, never giving one consistent setup time to bed in (this season very much a repeat of that). We'd always go on a run of points when he eventually worked it out (and worked out just to leave it). The apollon game was the biggest failure for me, but I wouldn't describe the performance as meek, rather predictable after scraping the home leg. It was crystal clear that we needed to buy a striker before that game, and we had the open goal of the shitey Danish team - already drawn - to get us the money spinning group stages. I'd love to hear the inside track on that. It was such a massive fuck up, and not in hindsight either. McInnes should have been battering down Milne's door to get a deal done that week, and Milne should have been insisting that we brought forward any recruitment the manager needed to secure the win (or draw). The fact that we went and bought May the week after was like rubbing salt in the wound, we should have just saved the money. I still can't fathom it. I have no doubt McInnes would still be in a job had we won that one as it'd have set us up for a couple of years and allowed us to replace the players who exited. For me, that was our turning point. Also, I think you've neglected the club's role in all this. If they had concerns about McInnes' recruitment (which they should have), they should have offered significantly greater support. McInnes didn't scout guys like Wilson, Ojo, Forrester etc that's as much a club failure as manager and I think that if we don't put something in place that's better, then the next manager will be in the same place in 18 months time. McInnes was given far too much responsibility and I think that's a structural issue that requires changing. Finally, I don't believe Bryson was on anything like £7k per week!

I'd love to see the club announce the signing of Judas as the new manager just to wind up tup.

Atlanta are after £230,000 for him apparently, probably not worth it.

Just get Jess back. Fuck everybody else.

And since then, Yogi is turning county into a feared set of world beaters. Goodwin is probably the only manager I'd consider in Scotland, however I wouldn't pay the money st Mirren would want as he'd still be a risk. I'm surprised that Maloney hasn't been mentioned. Probably not big enough to make it in management.

There's a young assistant manager at Stockport county who's been touted for big things. Probably be a bit of compensation, but in my opinion would be worth the stretch. Exactly the type of guy that could take us forward. He's interested in another job, so we'd need to act quickly.

Aye, I saw that after I posted. The Collins malkay dream team.

Good stuff. He can have no complaints. Did his best, with a lot of professionalism and has left the club in a significantly better position than when he started. He wasn't a disgrace by any stretch, and the club did the right thing by him, giving him every chance to succeed. Collins has just expressed an interest in the Tims job, so expect we'll do a McGhee scenario and offer him the dons job once he's heard back from them.

Possibly, I'm wasn't really talking about a manager though. In Romanov's case, I just meant that he was willing to speak out against the scum on occasion, but he didn't have a deep enough understanding for it to hit the mark, which was frustrating. It meant it was easily batted away, and filed under "crazy foreigner". As a dons fan, Cormack has enough experience of Scottish football to make a strong, evidence-based case, but it'd have to be a sustained, consistent attack on the setup backed with some of the ideas that exist in yank sport. Unless you attack the structure of the game in this country, you won't do that, that's the point. Tinkering with the manager isn't going to change that (I'm not saying: keep McInnes), we have 36 years of evidence spanning hundreds of managers (across the SPFL). We can see where we are on our current budget, with our best total of 76 points (when everything went right), low end 62ish. To get to 80 points consistently you're probably looking at double our budget, realistically, over several years. To do that, you either need a benefactor who you're beholden to in the English style, a massive intake of new revenue from all the hidden dandies out there waiting for a new stadium or whatever is holding them back since before Fergie was here, or Europa League football regularly at group stages (creating a three tier system in the SPFL as opposed to the current two). Once you're at that 80 points, you review the options then to see if there are avenues to take that up to 90, which might guarantee a few league wins. What it isn't, is an overnight project, and it's certainly not something a change in manager will bring about, it needs far more than that. We'll see what happens in the coming year with the shitey European changes, that could offer the new manager opportunity, but it will be through good fortune of timing rather than ability.

He is just a part of a board. He's responsible to shareholders. The one/only good thing about Romanov at hearts was that he was sole owner, and was willing to say what he thought. Unfortunately he was a charlatan too, with little understanding of Scottish football.