RicoS321

At a certain point you have to stop chasing the guy who at some stage may become a player. Wilson had plenty of opportunities earlier in the season and he hid. Constantly making runs into places he knew he wouldn't get the ball. He's clearly got ability, but he's forgotten how to play fitba as part of a team. He was okay on Saturday, but if that's a guy playing for his future in the game then we should steer well clear. It would be exceptionally high risk as we'd end up with Cosgrove playing the majority of games again with Wilson happy to take the bench (Anderson's chances then being limited further). We'd have to pay a huge chunk of money for a guy that we'd have to nurture through a large number of games before we saw any return (if at all). We've unsuccessfully attempted that with May and it's had a negative impact we certainly shouldn't be making the same mistake again. Would anyone be happy to see Wilson start the first ten games of the season with no return? We're not in a position that we can afford to do that in my opinion. To add, as LA-Don suggested that we give Wilson the patience we gave Cosgrove. Up until Cosgrove started scoring (i.e. earned his place) in December, Wilson had started every single game he was fit in both league and cup: 9 games. Cosgrove in that period had started just 3 (Wilson wasn't fit until the Motherwell game). We gave him a lot of time to prove himself.

Interesting. I suspect that there is a lot of that type of thinking in the game. We probably underestimate the additional cost required to persuade a player to come all this way up North. Whilst we have a 10% bigger average salary than the Hibees, I suspect that can be quickly eaten up by the extra bribery required to make the move. It's not like the cost of living is particularly cheap up here either.

Is it not Reading? Anyway, I think we're very close to Hibs in average wages all things considered. We could certainly offer a better package, but not a significantly better package. That type of offering can then easily be watered down by preferred location, knowing the club and players and so on. In other words, I don't think we could offer enough of a financial incentive if he's enjoying life in Edinburgh or loves working for Cuntingbottom or whatever.

He's been shot in the arm? I don't think a 5 year deal was a good idea in that case. Tremendous 'keeper like. Best since Leighton for me.

Exactly. If Dons Supporters' Together were any sort of fan representative group they would have setup (or at least attempted to, or asked for help in doing so) a rival DNA scheme, with publicly available accounts, that allowed dons fans to pay in. At certain threshholds, they would invest into the club. They could then lobby the club to point people toward that vehicle rather and ditch the DNA. To be honest, if the club really gave a shite about what the fans thought then they'd have created DNA in that mould themselves. Isn't that what hearts have done (obviously in different circumstances, given their admin)?

Exactly, but they'll just change what it was for because there was no accountability. When it comes to next years' DNA advert, they'll mention Max Lowe and "the next Connor McLennan/McKenna/Campbell etc", despite the fact it might have all been spent on a dud.

It meant I nearly didn't get a ticket for the Burnley match and that people who paid money got to go over those who actually attended games. It meant shiter seats at the cup final. And so on. Most importantly, it allowed the club to receive money from fans without representation, which further removed any control the fans may have had over the club by centring wealth on the club rather than the support - a dilution, if ye like. At a time when we're moving stadium without any consultation, mindlessly ploughing money into that project will - in my mind - have a huge detrimental effect on the future of the club as it moves to the middle of fucking nowhere.

Given the personnel, what would you think our best approach would be?

The problem is that the dross is not the "making up the numbers" element of our squad. The dross are the guys that were bought in to be the first team (the high quality signings). Ball, Considine and Cosgrove should have been our dross this season, but they are first team regulars, each with over 30 games this season. We simply cannot say "we need 2-3 high quality signings" because the return on player signings in this league is/should be about 50%. In reality, we need 5-6 high quality signings in the hope that 2-3 make it. We could significantly reduce our risk by signing Max Lowe for example. Signing Djoum is low risk (although I think he's worse than Shinnie, but still pretty decent) but you'd still want another midfielder beyond him. Cadden would be an excellent signing. Stealing McNulty from Hibs would be an excellent piece of business too. The point being that your high quality signings are players that we will already know about. That then comes with a wage bill by paying Djoum more than Hertz, or an even bigger wage bill by getting Cadden or McNulty before a wealthier English club comes in. Are there any other players you can think of in that bracket? If it's not this type of low risk tried and tested player then we're back to a 50% strike rate and the dross building up. As you say, we're way behind after 2 poor summer windows in a row, so we're roughly where we were when McInnes started, which I don't suppose is unusual in fitba. I'd be inclined just to ditch May, Gleeson and Ball in the summer and really just go full scale re-build.

Has it? Jesus. That's poor given the European monies. We do have quite a wage bill like and that will come back to bite us if we don't sort that out. I suppose we have to look at shifting on players like McKenna before he becomes too expensive to sit within our structure. Anyway, DNA's very DNA is flawed. It is designed to be relied upon. When people like Tyrant realise that it's pap and stop subscribing then you lose that income stream. It's not like the tangible payment of going to a fitba match, you're essentially paying for a feeling or - at best - a service. It's very short-term. In that regard, it can only really be used to fund season long loans like Wilson and Lowe or transfer fees or one off infrastructure projects. You cannot load a player permanently on the wage bill through DNA, as a decrease in membership will leave you short. Obviously, you can, but you have to be careful. Assume that you're going to lose 10% of DNA subscribers per year, and rising over 5-6 years or so. At that point you raise a new scheme to replace it. As a stop gap between now and the new stadium it's probably a good scheme. For the fans, DNA is not a success and it never could be. You're paying money without representation. You have no idea whether that money was spent on Wilson, replacing seats in the South stand or legal fees to fight the WANKS. Money for nothing basically. For the club, they got money for nothing. It's a success.

To be fair, they're all al cunts. You'd expect a high mortality rate.

I haven't heard how is Alloa stint is going. He missed a chunk of their games in the last month or two. Hopefully it was injury, rather than ability, related. Played every game up until March. Happy to have him as back up like if he's good enough.

The problem is, is that is what we tried to do last summer. We got a few key signings in as first teamers. We then spent the end of the window adding Lowe, Hobban, Wilson, Ball to make up for the fact that our initial signings were pap. We've ended up with a lightweight squad which wouldn't have been the case. We'd have been completely fine if Forrester, Gleeson and Wilson hadn't been shite. We've ended up with a squad with a host of extras who all need game time at some stage to keep them happy, but if Gleeson and Forrester had been up to it then Ball wouldn't have been signed. If we'd got Lowe in earlier, then Hobban wouldn't have been signed. If May and Cosgrove hadn't been average then Wilson wouldn't have been signed. The problem that we have is that we're looking for so many first teamers we'll inevitably get a good few dross purchases at the same time - it's the nature of the business unfortunately. Given the turnover again, I think we'll struggle to retain a light squad without being completely ruthless. For example, I'd happily have Cosgrove, Anderson and another striker up front but we'd have to ditch May. In the front 3 McLennan, Wright, McGinn and GMS replacement might again be enough. I'd happily have Ferguson, Shinnie replacement (Djoum), Campbell, New Signing in midfield but that would mean getting rid of both Gleeson and Ball. In defence we've only really got Harrington as cover for right back coming through, so Lowe (or Lowe replacement), plus Considine, McKenna, Devlin and Logan would seem exceptionally light so I'd get a Hobban type signing too. That is a minimum of 6 signings right there. Are you realistic about our ability to make 6 accurate signings in the summer window? I would think that we'd have to make ten signings in order to get 6 good ones (by good, I mean two midfielders that are better than Ball for example). That's going to leave us with an additional 4 players who we'll have on the bench fighting for time with the youngsters. Even that would/should be deemed a succesful window with a 60% success rate on signings. It certainly highlights the stupidity of those suggesting we get rid of Considine.

Is Ferguson not still suspended? I thought he had a two match ban? If Shinnie is missing, then I expect he'll play Devlin at right back and move Ball into midfield and Gleeson and play a 4-5-1. If Ferguson also missing then I think we're screwed (I think we'll struggle without Shinnie anyway).

I've always found that shiteloads of booze is an excellent bet at Perth races.

2021. The year that Scotland breaks free.

Ball just puts in a good robust challenge. There's no way he'd be cited for that. I don't see the leg headbutt on the replay, but that's not to say it didn't occur after. The ref is looking at the incident from shortly after the moment the ball goes loose, so he'd have seen the majority of it. There's certainly not enough video evidence to cite Ball for anything is there? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/scotland/48006978

I just watched it back. You're right, kicking him when they're down is poor, but it's a wee tap. It's like it's being done to get a reaction from our player rather than to hurt him. The sort of force you'd use to get someone off your foot if they'd landed on it. It just seems very weak to be a red like. I doubt they'd get it rescinded, but it doesn't seem worse than Morelos'.

Not a red card though. As per the Morelos precedent it should have been a yellow. Looked very similar in that it was a frustrated petulant kick rather than an attempt to cause harm (or whatever the wording was). They should appeal, citing the Morelos case and make their appeal public.

I'm not sure this happened.

No, I'm saying the opposite. Overall, the decision was correct, but in isolation it looks like poor planning. Has he let Frank Ross go? I thought he was injured?

I like John Hughes, he's ace fun. It'd be a tremendous joke to play on the tartan army to have him at the helm for a bit. Really test their passion for the national side.

I disagree. Wright is of the age that he either needs to do something or get shipped. Another 6 months sitting on our bench with the occasional appearance here and there would have done him no good. It might have been useful for us in the short term, but we've got to put the development of our youth first and if that means we lose out on a player for the few games he might have been useful in then so be it. A good run of games at Dundee - if he gets them - is far more than we could have offered him. After 3 months rusting on the bench since January too, we'd probably end up with a worse player out wide than Stewart who he'd be brought in to replace. To me, it wasn't bad planning, it was just a choice that had to be made. I think McInnes took that short term approach with Wright a year ago and it totally backfired then, so he had to make up for it this time round.

Aye, important one. Would be nice to push the hun all the way for second with a very strong finish to the season (including beating them again of course). I doubt we will like (push the huns for second), but I think we've got a good chance this weekend. One thing about having a weak bench and injuries means that the team picks itself. -------------Lewis------------- Ball--Consi--McKenna--Lowe ----Campbell--Shinnie-------- -McLennan---May---Stewart- -----------Cosgrove---------- Might see Gleeson in for Campbell I suppose, but hope not. I'd actually put May out wide and Stewart through the centre, but I think McInnes will keep him wide.

Let's be honest, it hasn't been turgid for a few seasons. It's been poorer for two seasons. At points last season it was still a pretty high standard (based on our league and based on this century by any team outwith the cheeks). Three seasons ago we were banging in goals in a manner we haven't done since Shearer was up front. We scored 7 goals in more than one game and six in another. To say it was turgid is to hold AFC to a ridiculously high standard. We were excellent that season by any standard any non-scum team has set in the last 25 years. After losing Hayes and McGinn we struggled significantly but still turned out some excellent performances such as the hibs one at Pittodrie and we finished an impressive second in the league with some very good post-split performances. I think that's an acceptable state of affairs given the difficulty in replacing players lost. However, because we were so far away in our signings (May, GMS, Stewart, Maynard etc) it set us up for another poor season. May, GMS etc weren't terrible, but they were significantly poorer than what came before. Going into this season we followed up poor signings with poor signings and it's put us further behind. We've had some great results and a handful of decent performances (Hearts at Pittodrie, the early league games where GMS was playing well, the Huns at Ibrox etc), but we're grinding most performances out and one or two injuries are having a huge impact on the overall performance (Shinnie at the weekend, Lowe on boxing day). It's been mostly poor. I don't think we should overstate the problem, but still recognising that there is a problem. To me, getting a new manager in won't fix the fundamental issue with recruitment. One thing that the Tims did really well under Lennon in his first spell was set up a good recruitment network that put ready-made players under his nose with only the paperwork to go. We're either not doing that, or we've got the wrong people doing it. McInnes can't be expected to do everything on his own and neither can any replacement. That recruitment wing of the club needs a complete overhaul to get people who can decipher what the manager needs in a player and recognise that in players in other leagues. If I could see that Gleeson wasn't dynamic enough for our first team in 30 minutes, then our scouts should have. Scouts can watch these guys over 5-6 games, with a manger likely only to see 1 (Lampard only came up to see one dons game as an example before going for Shinnie) where a player could just have a good game or they are already sold on them by the scout. McInnes takes the blame, but the problem clearly is far more systemic (we've barely scouted and signed a good player this century). Guys like Tansey, Zola etc show he's hit or miss in his own judgement so as a club we need to do significantly better. In my opinion, McInnes showed a couple of seasons ago that he could get a team to play fitba, but a team with poorer players he resorts to game management and grinding out results. A change in manager will just be something different to that.