RicoS321

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.

Aye, I'd agree that another season is deserved. I'd like to see how he does with his re-building just to satisfy my own intrigue rather than from any footballing point of view. To me, there hasn't been failure on his part, just the signs of failure. This coming season will see if he explicitly fails or not and I think he's owed the opportunity to do that! 67 points from that squad is pretty impressive all things considered as we were clearly lacking in some key areas (especially with GMS missing for half of the season). It shows the strength of the competition that ~70 points would have been required to secure 3rd spot and I think that's a good thing. For me, McInnes is still the second best manager in the league behind Clarke, although we'd arguably get a similar return from Lennon, Robinson and perhaps Heckingbottom (although I have a feeling the bottom will fall out of his Hecking shortly). That doesn't mean I don't think we can do better, its just that there isn't better in the SPL and it is worth noting. His weaknesses are there for all to see, with his biggest weakness to date being in the transfer market. Unfortunately his shitness in the transfer market leaves him having to grind out results in a brutal campaign in order just to get close to 3rd place. Clarke's far more efficient approach in signing players who perform a very specific set of tasks was much more successful, but perhaps - perversely - has its limitations with a bigger budget and more is expected of individual players (I don't think it does but see Stewart who couldn't cope when asked to do more than one thing for an example). With so many players leaving I see this as a prime opportunity for McInnes to take on Clarke's approach by being very specific in the transfer market (with a couple of Ball's to fill in the gaps). Weirdly enough, guys like Wilson and May fit quite well into that approach as they both clearly have their very obvious uses and very obvious limitations (as does Curtis Main actually). A lot will depend on his first few signings. They're going to have to be very good to take the pressure off the rest of the summer and allow him to be a bit more risky to try and take us forward (i.e not Dom Ball). What I'd really like to see next season though is more corporate PDFs being released by the club. They make me feel really positive about what's happening at Pittodrie. Vision, ken?

I can imagine it being true. The board seem to want him throughout their "project"* and he's certainly given them a return no their investment in him with hugely increased revenues in the time he's been here. If he has a decent next season then someone somewhere will likely put in an offer too. I don't think the board see things the way that the fans do. He's stable, done a good job so far and unlikely to fuck up massively in the near future. *by that I mean, he fits perfectly into that weird document they released the other day

I agree with this. A bit like Stevie May when he was at St Johnstone, I just don't see any clear room for improvement in Ball's game. He's always going to be average. If we're only making a handful of signings and ditching Gleeson then I'm happy enough for him to stay provided we get one proven good central midfielder. Otherwise, I'd try and complete other signings first and come back to Ball if we fuck those up.

As long as he doesn't wear blades he should be fine.

I did note that they were "looking into" offering some form of representation for future DNA schemes. Whether that be in the form of shares or whatever, that can only be a good thing. "Looking into" probably means "looking at how we can avoid it but make it seem like we are doing it". At least they've stated objectives of winning silverware and challenging those with bigger budgets. What the consequences of not doing so remains to be seen. Their tiny part regarding wider fan participation in the future of Scottish fitba is massively important (in my opinion more important than what happens just at AFC) but shouldn't really have formed part of the document given it was just a couple of token sentences - better to not say anything.

I like the way that they've airbrushed James Wilson from DNA's history. When you talk about communication and transparency, a document that only accentuates the positives doesn't align itself with that and so just appears like the bunch of PR bollocks it likely is.

I'm not sure the age thing really holds true for a manager moving from the SPFL to the Scotland job though. It's a comparatively quick route to the EPL all things considered. McInnes should be seriously considering it like. Win two fixtures in the play-offs and you're the first Scottish manager this century to qualify for the euros. You'd be an instant hero and an instant target for bigger clubs than you'd ever be considered for managing in the SPFL. He's got the confidence in his own ability, so he'll believe he can improve on McLeish (coming in after McLeish is also a good time to take it). Players like him, so he wouldn't face the call-offs. His prior hun background gains him the backing of the establishment and the press. His lack of actual hunnishness makes him completely fine in the Tim book also. Returning to club management is a simple case of saying "I prefer the day-to-day work involved at club level" and you're good to go. I don't see a downside for him to be honest. Avoids the massive re-build that he'd leave behind too. Unless AFC are offering him an astronomical budget then he's caught in a rut. We're not going to match the scum financially to proceed in the league, and evidence suggests that he's probably not got the style (of play) to win trophies as the underdog, so he'd be reliant on - at least - the tims being knocked out by someone else in a prior round.