RicoS321

Which one would that be? It's definitely not Dorrington. I think Milne could maybe be trusted to keep it simple perhaps. To me, a fifth should be a utility player, or the next young player. Not a guy that we should be giving plenty of game time at this stage in his career, nor a guy who is already a Latvian international.

I like Dorrington, I think he's going to be a fantastic player, but I can't help but think we're making this signing for fear of missing out. We have absolutely zero requirement for a right sided centre half. He's a loanee, with zero option to buy as far as I can tell. He's ahead of Tobers and Milne in the pecking order, who are our players. We could change to a back three, of course, but I think that takes away from what was tried last season. There are probably a handful of games where a back three would be beneficial from a defensive perspective. I'd be unconvinced of it when trying to break teams down at home (or away). It just reeks of poor squad building to be honest. Again, I'd go back to that employee in the building who puts pressure on the manager to make sense of these calls (the technical director we were expecting five years ago). In terms of squad harmony, player development (Milne), it doesn't make sense. It's not an area of the pitch that traditionally needs a huge number of players. Knoester will likely play 40+ games, and so will Dorrington now I'd expect. We have Polvara and Devlin who can both cover for the half dozen games that we struggle with suspensions etc, I don't think we need Tobers and Milne to provide cover for that one position. In fact, as a general rule, we should be looking at two players for every position, with utility players for third cover (other than striker, perhaps, where different types of striker can adapt to different strategies). In light of this signing, I'd look to move on Rubezic (regardless of the signing) and Tobers.

It's an absolute abomination of a competition. Actually, it's not a competition at all anymore, I think it's lost the right to be called that. I hope the Dons B get fucking tanked for agreeing to this pish, or the lower league sides and their fans do the decent thing and boycott it.

The US public voted for him when he was a known rapist. Why would a predilection for children be different? It's another distraction.

Thankfully that would never happen in this country.

The only thing more ridiculous than putting that idiot in charge of football strategy would be to put Jack Ross in charge of players' wardrobe.

New signing. To Beconfirmed.

Woke pish. We used to play in 40 degrees, with a fag at half time to quench the thirst.

What I make of that is that people doing the stadium tour might use those shirts during visits to the bathroom and so the staff have removed them in advance. Out of interest, what was the tour like? If I'm struggling for things to do in the summer holidays, I might go wild. I've also got relatives up from England, and they would jump at the chance at seeing a stadium like Pittodrie given the poor offerings they have down there.

I think you could be right, I just think it'd be a big mistake. Gueye and Adil aren't midfielders, as such. They'd play number 10 for us, in front of the midfield. Polvara doesn't do the running required of a number 8. Really, Shinnie is the only one with real work rate in there, and we generally suffered against better teams when he was at left back. Palaversa might step up, maybe, but it's a risk. He didn't manage to play past the hour mark in the latter part of the season (magnificent effort in the final aside), and would regularly start the second half of game already done. Whilst we appear to be overloaded in midfield, we're still missing a function. I guess we could give it until January. It's the pain in the arse that is Europe that makes it such an issue - one that is gone by January.

Lost their battle?

I have to say, all this chat about cups is far more exciting than discussing the abomination of a strip, or the uneventful window. Perhaps we should consider starting a cups thread.

I have some cups fae M&S or John Lewis or some of those places that have certainly lasted much longer than the Dons' one without fading, I expect it's something to do with the glaze and the finishing layers (I have a couple of M&S - we got vouchers - ones that have faded too). My folks have still got cups they use nearly daily that have their favourite child's (me) name on them that have been in use over many decades, so I suspect it's just the more general enshittification that modernity continues to serve. Back in my day, our lead cups would last for centuries. A bit of asbestos for a lid, kept everything nice and warm.

We got a left back didn't we? We definitely need a box to box midfielder. The games where Shinnie did the most work were the games we were most successful in I'd say. Clarkson looks to be more and more likely to put in a shift and cover some serious yards, but we need the legs of Shinnie two years ago, or Ramadani, to give us that extra lift in the middle of the park. A striker is imperative. Once again, though, we need to see some faces out the door too. Vinnie, Ambrose, Rubi, Jensen R, maybe even Duncan. Make space for some of the new duds that come from a summer of signings!

I'm drinking my cup of tea from a five year old Dons' cup this morning as it happens and going by that I reckon the writing on that one you've linked will fade more quickly than your memory of the day. Edit: I should add that my Dons' mug is a solid workhorse of the cup world, good to drink from, and gets used daily. In terms of cupness, I'd give it a strong 8/10. Hope this helps.

Yep, that seems fair. McInnes had hit a huge dilemma as our manager. He'd mastered a formation and style that could beat anyone in the league outside the scum (one, at the time), but we couldn't lay a glove on the Tims or a particular level of European opponent. In Rooney, we had a prolific striker who was worse than useless against either. We didn't have the budget or scouting network (Milne controlled the former, McInnes the latter) to get a striker that could unlock that next level, at least in part. McInnes' answer was a big lad, which failed in Stockley, but Cosgrove was a success. He used his body well, and held the ball up well, and got into great positions as a poacher. He allowed us to play further up the park against the likes of the Tims and gave us something different (and possibly even better) than Rooney. Of course, because we never managed to get another goalscorer to compliment Cosgrove we ended up going long too often, and in games we didn't need to, but I also think that that was vastly overstated by some fans, who exclusively link big lad with big punt even though we still played some nice stuff. If we'd been able to mix up our style a bit, I think Cosgrove would have been an asset for a bit longer. He then had a barren spell, got injured, and in that time - coinciding with Cormack having greater influence - McInnes moved to the "entertaining" 3-4-3, with Hedges, Watkins and Wright. Cosgrove was unable to fit into that and became a bit of a figure of scorn (maybe even hate) among fans, that I don't think I've seen before for a striker that was so prolific.

I'm not surprised by either of these to be honest. McInnes isn't an idiot. Cormack came in with grand plans, but with absolutely no idea how to implement them. McInnes will have known the way clubs were going in terms of control over signings and managerial succession planning, and I think he'd have always been amenable to it. What he wouldn't have been amenable to is the half arsed approach that Cormack was taking towards it. He had the example of Hernandez, and he'll have likely thought that Cormack was full of shite. Ultimately, McInnes was going to be responsible for Cormack's mistakes (and was, given the final January window), and he'd have been reticent to give up control on that basis. He was proven entirely correct too. Three managers have been expended on Cormack's experiments. They've had the ridiculous task of playing entertaining football, with signings made via a system still a massive work in progress, with no proper backroom team to do the recruitment work. Had we not won the cup, then it might have taken a fourth manager too.

I thought he was a striker?

Clarkson is far more technically gifted than anything this lad has in his video reel.

I don't think he'll make it at our level from what I've seen. I could see him getting to the level of someone like Bruce Anderson if he works hard. I mentioned it when he first came in, he doesn't have the pace to make it, nor the height to make up for the pace. He uses his body well and has a decent touch. He can definitely make a go of it at professional level, he might just need a couple of years working out the best way to make his attributes work best in the senior game. He's not going to get that opportunity for us I don't think.

What's with the inversion of our midfield?

I guess it's easier to write off players who you see every week. The risk in signing a foreign player is that they might turn out to be crap, whereas the risk in getting rid of the two young lads is that they might turn out to be very good. I think that risk is fairly low. For me it would be the equivalent of offering Sokler a three year deal, or McGarry or someone. You get a serviceable squad replacement player, but not likely to turn into something else. It's not just that though, the best thing for young lads, and their careers, is to get regular professional game time to see if they can carve a decade of wages out of it. Both have some really good attributes that could happily see them making a career. Good luck to them.

Not surprised. Didn't think Marshall or Emslie would have been ready for first team for at least a couple of years, if ever. Probably not worth taking the risk on.

Condolences to the family of @JessianK

I would class Clarkson, Palaversa and Polvara as relative youth at 23, 25 and 25 (the latter two having long spells of injury). In the last six months, Clarkson has finally reached the stage where he can do the miles, and for ninety minutes. Age isn't the issue at all though. I'm suggesting that it's unlikely that an 18 year old will have developed physically to the extent that they can cover the 10-13km in the top flight that were looking for. Not once or twice, but every week. That's what Ferguson is now doing in Italy, but wasn't with us, as an example. It's telling that he's described as a holding midfielder, and that's absolutely fine, and an area in which he can get minutes probably. It just means that we still need another midfielder in the door for the first eleven, which is a box to box midfielder. That's also fine, I know that we're not going to get all our signings in order of priority.