RicoS321

That's a bit of a stupidly general rule. The fact that Taylor returning isn't the issue, it's the fact that we know he's not that good. Considine is miles better than Ash with the ball at his feet. Devlin too, for that matter. That's the issue. With one right sided defender who is poor on the ball (Devlin), we needed a player who is far more comfortable on the ball than Taylor (Hoban-type). Devlin and Taylor are both uncomfortable on their strong foot, so to consider a partnership of the two of them with one playing on their wrong side is seriously playing to our weaknesses. I can only assume McKenna is staying and so Considine and him will cover left, and Taylor and Devlin right with little need for cross over.

For those that don't believe KFP.... https://www.afc.co.uk/2019/06/04/ashton-re-joins-the-dons/ Fuck sake dons.

McInnes Hedges his bets on Welsh wonderkid.

But it isn't the dream. Certainly not of the EU. If you read the article above by Rocket then you'd know that. Followed up by the Lisbon treaty and its surplus requirements. Did you complete ignore what happened to Greece? Stripped of everything, accused of being lazy, pension-dwelling scum. Public sector absolutely trashed. Then trashed again. All part of the globalist expansionist neo-liberal carve up. All because they lost the ability to produce the money required themselves. Only an utter moron would suggest a country join the Euro in its current form. It would either destroy the UK, or someone less well off would get destroyed on our behalf (more likely). It's an absolutely disgusting setup, and not even remotely like the USD. The US looks after its states. It recycles its surpluses. The EU is so far removed from that its unbelievable. The fact that you don't understand that, but advocate that position, is just blatant ignorance. A United States of Europe would be absolutely fine, but if you think that's what the EU is, was or will ever be then you're massively wrong.

Really? Diminishing from 16% in 2007 to 10% of world output in 2017 would suggest that Europe's steel industry is only heading in one direction too. The majors being owned by India and the like other than yer Germans.

Yep, I'm quite familiar with the story. I just don't perceive the EU to be any different than, let's say, the Blair government. Austerity is an EU project. Their surplus requirements constitutionally promoting that - something that should be decided democractically invoked in law to avoid being subjected to democracy. I'm in complete agreement that the Tory version of brexit (i.e. the only one on the table) is horrific. The only question for me is one that I can't answer. Given that we know that the EU is essentially a globalist, neo-liberal project of slightly less greed and ugliness than the UK (look at their fire-sale of Greece) that has almost zero chance of reform, do we kick the can down the road, or do we ditch the EU and hope for either independence or that the Torys implode and leave something better behind? The choice is fairly shite. That's about the crux of it for me like. Apart from putting it to the electorate. It should just form part of a party manifesto. We don't need referendums for constitutional arrangements. The tory cunts should have had it on their 2015 manifesto: "We will be banning foreigners, and in order to do so we will be leaving the EU - vote for us ye dicks". A referendum about EU membership is just fucking bizarre.

That doesn't really make sense as an answer to the questions I asked. We've barely got a steel industry as part of the EU and it's heading in one direction. Do you believe that remaining in the EU would improve our chances of growing our steel industry? If so, why has the opposite occurred?

He was pap. Very limited. A poor man's Scott Vernon.

Skills for what? All our shite is made in China, and most of that shite we don't need. What is it that we are missing (or is needed) in this country for which there is a skill shortage? Doctors perhaps? I certainly have had zero problems in getting tradesmen or mechanicing services; almost always a British person. What are the actual requirements in terms of skilled worker these days? It's certainly massively reduced. For example, if I'm making Ikea(esque) furniture for retail, then I don't need an army of joiners, I just need labourers to move shite from one CNC machine to the next and one skilled CNC contractor/consultant. If my electric car stops working, then I plug it into a computer to tell me it's fucked. Does anyone get their washing machine repaired or do they just buy a new one? If there is a skills vacuum then it's because there isn't a requirement for the skill. Beyond the hyper-specialist type roles that you mention, or the shifting of money from one account to another in the sudo-gambling financial industry, what are we missing? The EU is a globalist, expansionist organisation by design. It operates on the retarded constitutional surplus model. It is within that model that we've been afforded the opportunity to water down our skillset. For me, it doesn't really hold water that by staying in the EU we will rely less on imported skills, which seems to be what you're arguing for (or complaining about the lack of)? In fact, the overwhelming evidence - and the EU's trade, economic and monetary policy requirement and design - suggests that we will become less and less skilled. Surely a benefit, in your terms, to leaving the EU would be that it could force the UK to learn to feed/clothe/produce themselves (I don't think it would, but that's not the point, the point is that the status quo most certainly doesn't)?

There's a lot of potential in yer wingers fae down South like, so it's an interesting signing if it happens. It's entirely different down there if yer a McGinn style winger and those types often struggle to fit in due to the more physical approach. That said, if we're looking at Main and the like then he'll struggle to fit into that more direct approach too. The biggest concern is that, at 6ft1, he's going to be nowhere near tall enough to keep an Ash Taylor pass from going out of play.

He played a few games in the early season (St Mirren in the cup springs to mind) and I think may have even scored? Anyway, he got injured and hasn't returned. I suspect that's why the 1 year has been given as he missed a huge amount of the season and we'd like to give him a chance, which seems fair. I'm not convinced he'll make it, I didn't think he had the pace to play out wide and not the strength to play centrally, but hope I'm wrong. Interesting that GMS isn't in the list of departures. Could see him back in a dons strip next season? Could do a lot worse like, fantastic player on his day.

It's going to have to be some trick of architecture to make the new stadium in Aberdeen.

I don't think DM sees Considine as a left back anymore. Lowe was deliberately signed to strengthen that area leaving Considine as backup at the start of the season as it was obvious it was an issue. He clearly recognised it was an issue, and when Lowe was rumoured not to be returning in January he was touted as being in the market for immediate replacements.

We can't really afford squad signings before we make our actual signings though (unless it is on a one-in-one-out basis - May for Main). Squad signings should only happen after the proper signings or as a renewal of existing players' contracts. Take Taylor, there are only 3 options: 1. He's being signed as our first 11 right-sided defender, with existing players (Devlin) becoming a squad player 2. He's being signed as squad filler on top of existing players 3. He's being signed as squad filler to replace existing players and also supplemented by further signings in that position - thus we are building a big squad. If it's the first, then we're probably all in agreement that he isn't really an improvement on Devlin (when fit)? If it's the second then do we think that the Devlin/Taylor standard is good enough (given Devlin's form on return)? If it's the third option then shouldn't we be looking at a better standard with less filler? Or, shouldn't our filler be guys like Ball who could potentially cover a few positions (i.e. not Taylor)? Or do we need that level (pay level) of filler in defence specifically rather than better players elsewhere? To me, Taylor only fits in a scenario where we've attempted to sign a really good centre half and realised he's not that good so we just need a guy who we're certain is decentish as a safe signing because we know a lot about him already. Or, if we've got an agreement with a risky centre half signing like Hobban, who we know is good but might spend a chunk of the season injured. What am I missing?

Could you imagine the lift we'd get if the club announced that we were letting Gleeson go? They could bury the signings of Ash and Main in that news.

I have absolutely no idea like, but those were certainly my assumptions too.

You could be right, however the bit in bold was what I based my assumptions on. That he'd be far too expensive for a squad player. Put it this way, I think that we could get far cheaper squad players (like Devlin, who I expect would be on less than Taylor).

Taylor would not be a squad player, that's the issue.

I actually thought Main looked quite useful against us last time they played up here, having previously thought he was a lot worse. He wasn't the donkey I'd thought he was. That's not a compliment, just an observation, being "not as shite as I first though" shouldn't be our signing benchmark. We can't retain May and Main though, that would be mental. Taylor was strong/tall, a good tackler and his pace got him out of several of the problems he created. However, his Ifil-level of ball-kicking is a huge issue when we need our defenders to be taking the ball out of defence in the majority of our games. His positioning and general game-intelligence was seriously lacking. I don't think he offers anything we don't already have. Shug, for example, is a significantly better footballer as is Henry at the tim and the Livi boy that Hearts have signed. I'm not sure the purpose in this type of signing other than being a known quantity and so relatively low risk. Whether we like it or not, low risk is very important in this window because of the volume of transfers required (Main fits into this bracket too).

Loves the dons, hates the Tims. Good stuff.

I assume there's a vacancy in the club shop.

I used to think he looked quite solid (if a little bit of a headless chicken), but Motherwell weren't affected by his departure and 60 minutes for Hibs since January suggests he might be pish. Was Gauld injured or just pap? Also, Omeonga would be a good loanee and McNulty would be an (unlikely) excellent steal.

Really? Tested and failed I'd have said. I'd rather have a manager on the up rather than one doing the rounds. He hasn't been able to hold onto a job for more than a year since leaving Everton. Surely there's more to management than just having a had a job at some good clubs once? He doesn't seem to have been able to adapt his style in the last decade in order to get the best out of a team, with his early PNE and Everton success now very much the exception. I'd be very underwhelmed if I were a Tims fan with them being linked with him. I'd rather have Lennon.

He's a better footballer than Josh Magennis. His touch is generally pretty decent but his concentration is poor, which is why he looks to have a bad touch. He's clearly very capable of bringing a ball down quickly and with great effect but he's often remonstrating with himself and the ref (much like Magennis did). He doesn't have the pace and direct battering ram approach of Magennis however and I doubt he ever will. That lack of athleticism restricts the level he could play at, but not to a ridiculous degree. Improve his concentration and temperament (I don't mean fouling, I mean focus) and he'll be a much better player.

Exactly this. Only 20 months older than Bruce Anderson. Is a lot better when the ball is played into his body rather than expecting speculative headed flick-ons to come off. Needs to gain the confidence to not take the ball immediately back the way first, but he also needs actual runners to allow this. I don't think it's Cosgrove that has engineered our direct approach, this has come from having poorer movement from our wide players and midfielders and so he is an easy option. It's definitely not Cosgrove's fault that we haven't been able to find another striker to add to the goals this season. That second goal yesterday shows that having a big striker doesn't preclude you from scoring a great goal with the ball being played on the deck and Cosgrove's part in it was good (his pass to May was perfect in making sure that he wouldn't be able to shoot himself, which was clever play). We need another good striker, but having Cosgrove is a definite bonus.