RicoS321

Cairds get cancelled at the turn of the year, so he'd have to have been going some to be suspended already.

Aye, there was no concussion, just one of those cuts that bleeds like a whoor and needed stitches. DM said that the only reason he didn't return to the game was the time it would take to perform those stitches. Interesting one on Wednesday like. Common sense says that we stick to the same team from Saturday (Wilson for Cosgrove if necessary). At home, that's the way we should always be playing. Play GMS very high up on the wing against Tavernier and try and force an early booking, but at very least keep him defending. Even get Cosgrove dropping onto him for the headers from a Logan right to left to put pressue on him further. He's been the key to all their successes against us, but he's a pish defender, so play to his weaknesses (and our strengths). Shinnie and Ferguson improving every week in that midfield and we need to keep that momentum going. Hoban and Considine need to play like the latter and McKenna did at Ibrox and get hard up the arse of Morelos, niggling at every opportunity. Logan needs to play out of his skin again, as we'll need his covering both at full back and across the back when the inevitable over-the-top ball catches us out like it has all season. McInnes, will play the 4-5-1 though, with Ball or Gleeson coming in to midfield (probably Ball, unless Gleeson was any good against Hibs). I expect him to play McGinn out wide (in place of May or Stewart) because he'll put in a shift against Tavernier with defence-first in mind, or he'll play May there with the same instruction. I think we'll struggle with this approach, just as we did in the opening game where we were lucky to come away with a draw. I've a feeling that the Hibees game was the one where we played with confidence and bravery this week and I think we might lose. Fuck it, 2-0 to the dons, Ferguson and Considine.

None of those that left had proven quality though. It's a risk, but I'm actually quite glad to see the manager take one for once. I have no doubt his intention was to get another player in, but we've obviously failed. He'd probably made a decision that the players out the door weren't going to be good enough for the run in, and that shouldn't change just because we've not managed to get a replacement - they still wouldn't be good enough. For Wright and Anderson, we're sacrificing squad depth so that they can become better players by getting game time and I think that's the correct decision (should have happened sooner in Wright's case). Obviously, we'll get McGinn and GMS injured at the weekend and we'll be fucked, but that's life!

Are you counting Lowe as in and out? Forrester Tansey Wright Reynolds Anderson Stewart Who have I missed? Wilson hasn't returned has he? Edit: Jordan McGregor. He doesn't count.

5 out 1 in? Ruthless! Leaves about 21 still, which shows we were heavy on numbers. Lewis Cerny Lowe McKenna Considine Devlin Hoban Logan Ball Shinnie Ferguson Gleeson Campbell McGinn GMS McLennan Ross Stewart May Cosgrove Wilson

Quite happy with the way things are going actually. We're offloading a lot of the wider squad leaving just the bare minimum. With the winter break, I think there's maybe an opportunity to have a smaller squad anyway. We seemed to be very heavy on players, with a lot of guff in there. Could you imagine Reyonlds and Hoban hadn't been injured? That bench would have buckled under the weight of senior players. Wilson out and another in would be about right I'd say. Edit to add: just shows how shocking a decision it was not to put Wright out on loan last January. Arguably lost a year of his career for 20 minutes of game time last season. He could have got a good 6 months at a similar level to Dundee (Partick?) before the start of this season. It should have been obvious.

I agree, but Wright does seems to be perenially on the brink of being good but never manages to kick on. He's like Pawlett. I'd hate to see him spend another 6 months on our bench with the occasional cameo. Barker would be a direct replacement for GMS obviously. McLennan would provide cover, with Stewart, May and McGinn rotating between the wings and the behind the striker role as current.

I'm assuming that GMS going would be out of our hands. Anderson going out on loan would possibly be good for him, Wilson going would make zero difference to anything, other than an opportunity in the budget to bring in likes of Barker and that leaves Wright who I'd be surprised if we let go (on loan I assume) at the moment, given we didn't let him go out last January when it would have benefited both parties most. Although he does need some serious game time, so I wouldn't be averse to it. It'd basically be Barker in for GMS, which would be fine as I remember him being fairly decent at the hibees. We have too many players on too few minutes on our bench at the minute, so a pairing back might do us some good.

Somebody like Cadden would be an excellent signing, would improve the first 11. I think that we'll struggle to get a player like that in this window though, with a lot of competition and cost. A Cosgrove/Devlin type signing with a view to next season and a couple of pre-contracts would really help with the summer shopping list. If we could get Cadden on a pre-contract, we'd be doing well. There's only 15 games left, so I don't think we need another squad player. If we could get a loanee wide player or striker that would go into the first team, I think we'd stand a better chance of finishing second. That would have a huge negative effect on the huns again, and really set them up for a struggle next season, so I think it's definitely worth pursuing with another strong addition.

But they are the majority voting block (with a bit of DUP thrown in), so their party is representative of the voting public at the last GE in theory.

Is there any evidence at all that they did actually offer the reported amounts? They seemed exceptionally high bids and not really the sort of bids that the dons would turn down. The BBC reported that the Tims bid around £3.5M, which would seem about right, they didn't report on the Villa amount other than to say it was more. I just don't see any club thinking that they would need to bid more then £4-5M for an AFC player. It's 3-4 times our second place prize money.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no deal is exactly what it says isn't it? We just leave. In other words, it doesn't require to get through parliament, it just happens on leave day (at least that's the way it should happen).

One of the worst parts about the recent oil industry downturn was the swathes of cuts to resource and resource pay. It's not that a "haircut" wasn't required, but it was that that was the solution. Operators making comments like "20% cut across the board". The executives on large pay (not necessarily and issue) held up as the strategic thinkers who, when pressed, could only come up with pay cuts or stopping projects. There was zero calls for innovation, zero attempts at business process improvements and automation - just pay cuts, sit tight, wait for the oil price to go back up, then start again. The industry is now beginning to put prices up again and re-employing those positions that went. The problem was that it was all entirely predictable (it's happened 3 times in my career). Instead of trying to work out the most efficient way to run yer business while times are good and you can probably invest a bit of time, operators (mainly, but I suspect a lot of service companies were the same) just employed more people to the do same inefficient shite. When the hard times hit, the unfortunate job-lottery occurs and folks are left high and dry with an unaffordable mortgage (partly their own faults in some cases, but a hard lesson to learn). At it's best, it's irresponsible. It usually stems from (department) management performance being a strange measure of: having more people = more important, having greater expenditure = more important. It's rare (never) I ever here a manager desiring to make their department the smallest it can be, which is surely the entire point of management in private industry. Instead of the gap between the Exec level and the worker getting smaller (in terms of layers, not renumeration), it just gets taller. How does that relate to this loon? Fuck knows, I've forgotten the question.

Do you think it's just specific to fitba? I suspect that it's got a lot to do with maintaining happiness amongst squads as a whole. Like a "time-served" type approach outside of fitba. I see it in a lot of places I work, where a youngster will come in and be better than those above them. Their boss knows it and they know (or certainly believe) it, but they "respect the system" of promotion based on an age/experience/length of service type deal and try and manage is as best they can. Usually the young upstart just goes for a more senior position in another company where they're not held back and gets a good reference from their boss who is happy for them and happy to not have to deal with the issue. Other times, it plays out awkwardly and the immature (understandibly, not a criticism) youngster gets pissed off and plays up and it effects their confidence and performance. It's a difficult one like. Experience is obviously very important, but is it as important as ability? I suppose by having a sort of "same rules for everyone/respect the system" approach it avoids the difficult questions for the manager. Probably a bit of a cop out like. Certainly something we see at AFC like, where I don't think we have the balance of experience over ability quite right when it comes to squad rotation (GMS getting 13 minutes, Wilson 6 and Ross only 3 at 4-1 up last night as an example).

No worries. Again, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong here, "massively flawed" is just my opinion and apologies if it was overstated. But specifically, I was referring to this: It's flawed, in my opinion, because by saying that we are one manager short you aren't simply ruling out AFC. You are ruling out all other managers that have worked in Scotland since the early nineties who also haven't been good enough to overcome the huge financial disparity for their clubs. That ONE manager hasn't been found by anyone. Unless you're suggesting that AFC are in some way uniquely placed, which I don't think that you are. You then correct me (correctly) by saying: A point I'm happy to concede because you're clearly right. However, it does the reduce the pool somewhat for SPL chairmen/directors if they have to find the ONE manager before they have their first success and they become too expensive.

Thanks. The quotes you supplied show zero evidence of me changing my mind, the three being entirely compatible with one another. You've misinterpreted them.

Excellent. While you're at it, could you provide quotes to backup the bit in bold as I think you've misunderstood what I have said.

It's not really wasting time if you're explaining something to me that I haven't understood or simply misinterpreted. For example: This(1): does not equal this(2): and these(3): do not equal this(4): Is what I infer from this: As the above points were the only parts in my last reply that I took from your quotes (everything else was an explanation of my misunderstanding). For what it's worth, I don't think your point (1) above is that clear, to the extent that my interpretation (2) is ridiculous. You seem to be conflating the injury and the fact that it is a retrograde step. I'm happy to accept that you're saying that it's a retrograde step, and also that the effect of that serious an injury can be devastating. I don't think that point was very clear. In points (3) versus (4) I'm think that I have probably focused in on your repeated statements rather than your point as a whole, but I still think you could have been clearer.

There was nothing intentionally confrontational about what I wrote, nor intentionally insulting. I am more than happy to agree on disagreeing, I was merely hoping that you'd put a bit more flesh on the bones of your argument, which is a constant (argument) in all your posts by providing examples of managers that aren't losers, or evidence that backs up your claim that our goal is not to win the league, or any evidence that having a goal of winning the league makes any difference whatsoever to realising that goal over and above just having a goal of finishing as high up the league as possible and signing the best players we can within our budget (which I don't think we are even close to doing, I'm just unsure how much blame to attribute to the manager for that). When I said that you are arguing from another universe, I meant that it seemed you were arguing - about Hayes in this case - from a point at which we've ditched Milne and McInnes and are talking about a different team entirely with a different budget. I'm happy to admit that was incorrect, you're point was that his injury would be a detriment to his performances making him a retrograde step.

To save on the quoting, I do understand what you're saying, I just think it's massively flawed. Your opinion on McInnes aside, you're suggesting that we just need one manager that's a winner in order to win the league (one manager short); obviously with the associated luck etc. That suggests that in 34 years of Scottish fitba, there hasn't been one single manager at any club that is a winner? And Europe, where no league win - and I did include, and mention, Leicester in that - has come close to the disparity in wages from the Tims/Huns to their nearest competitor. Not one example. To avoid Leicester being argued about, let's say that there's one example, and it was Ranieri at Leicester. I'm pretty certain if I'd asked you about Chelsea's Ranieri "the tinkerman" back in 2002 you would have stated that he wasn't a winner (as would just about everyone). Anyway, that aside, that's one example of a significant gulf in wages being overturned this century. That suggests, to me, that a winner does cost money. Or certainly one that actually wins stuff and not just a person deemed to have a "winners mentality" like Lennon or Clarke (I like Clarke, but he wouldn't win the league with Aberdeen, so we're looking for someone better than him). That said, I do believe that our goal is to win the league every year, or at least the dream is. The notion that belief and winner's mentality alone can do it is just ridiculous though. The notion that anyone doesn't believe/dream that they can win the league is also wierd, I'm pretty certain McInnes and even Milne, have dreamt about holding the trophy at the end of the season and probably every season. It would be pretty stupid to expect it or budget or spend for it though.

Yep, he did well and the signs were good. The mad Lithuanian sending the club into admin which, in turn, relegated them because they spent much more money than they took in despite being very well placed in the league. If 34 years isn't a ceiling, then I'm not sure what it is. I don't expect to see many ceilings left in a 34 year old Stewarty new-build, that's for sure. It's systemic and circular. That you ignore the 34 years of evidence and put it down to Stewart Milne and McInnes is bewildering. I think Milne has done a poor job, and his idea for a new stadium will destroy the club, but I don't believe Anderson and Donald would have won us a league either (I do believe we'd have had a few more trophies and the like of Paterson and Miller would have been nowhere near the club and Westhill would be a ridiculous joke). The post-92 (ish) gulf in finances is unmatched anywhere in Europe. To win the league would require absolutely everything to go right: every signing, every decision, every last minute goal alongside a complete melt down from the Tims. It'd be significantly bigger than Leicester winning the EPL. My point about throwing millions at it, is that I don't think a short term spree would see us over the line. That's exactly what Romanov did and it failed at the first attempt and the Lithuanian imports got cheaper and cheaper. We're a good 7-8 players - at least - behind the tims. I watch Aberdeen because I've supported them since before my first memories and I enjoy watching fitba. I enjoy the ups and downs and the fact that you can watch a team develop or get shiter over time. I enjoy the moments that are great and the moments that are shite. I enjoy the fact that I can see the differences in performance from week to week because I see it with my own eyes. The formations, the tactics, the subs (or lack of, in McInnes' case), the timing of subs, the shite players and the good players. It's what fitba is about. I also tug off because we won the 2nd place trophy in recent seasons. Winning the league would absolutely be a fortituitous accident. Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring the last 34 years of evidence and the evidence throughout Europe where nobody else has achieved similar - it would take an absolutely monumental fuck-load of luck. This isn't just Aberdeen that are failing to do it, the evidence exists for every other team too, who also must be running and managing their club terribly by your standards. You fail to admit, nor acknowledge that there is not only a complete correlation between finance and league winning, but also a massive correlation between finance and being able to afford a manager who can overcome the correlation between finance and league winning. The perfect manager does exist, he just doesn't exist in a world where AFC can afford to pay him. I'm looking for AFC to do much, much more off the pitch to challenge the fact that 90% of our revenues go to one (occasionally two) club in this country and really hit the scum hard off the pitch. I'm looking for them to point out the fucking obvious again and again and again until something changes. Fitba in Scotland isn't sport, it's a bought and paid for sham. I want us to ditch the Milnes and become a club that lives and dies by its own turnover and support, not chasing the scum by trading insolvently or artificial investment from a few rich cunts. If we lose, we lose, if we win then we dinna have to credit some dick who we're beholden to because he happened to make money in some other industry once. I didn't mean we couldn't discuss anything, it's just that you seem to be arguing in a different universe to the one that currently exists at AFC. The goal (I assume) is to finish as high up the league as possible whilst spending an amount of money roughly in line with our turnover. The only question is whether that, within our turnover, is Hayes an investment that will help us improve on this year's league performances? You seem to be advocating that we spend money to chase, and overtake, the Tims I think? I don't know actually, because all you keep saying is that we should have a goal of winning the league with no apparent mechanism for us doing so. A day out, yes. Why wouldn't I? Would I prefer to be a Tim watching my financially doped squad win every week? Why should I see myself as any different to a Motherwell fan, or a Hearts or Hibs fan (given I have fuck all control over AFC)? I enjoy watching fitba, it's a good day out. I also enjoy the discussions about the games afterwards too. I don't know why you'd take issue with that. I do think that Milne is barrier for AFC, I disagree about McInnes. The difference is I know that the barrier he imposes is largely inconsequential in the scheme of things as there is a ceiling to our ability to make cash based on our support, and it would not make a dent in a single champions league game revenue for the Tim. My main complaint about him is that he makes a lot of mistakes, his vision for the club conflicts with my own and he has made no effort to change fitba in Scotland from the inside. In recent years he's done okay in his own terms and in McInnes he's got a manager who's in the top three in the country (Rogers, Clarke, McInnes), who has his obvious flaws but has a very solid points return despite those. I think he deserves to remain manager for a while longer and Milne should leave tomorrow and take his shitey plot in Westhill with him (aye, leave the training ground like).

You didnt, my apologies. I think that's (yer second point) the existential point that surrounds Scottish fitba in an where only two teams have won the league in the last 34 years for both those clubs who have not won the league and those that have. I'm not sure why you think AFC are best placed to resolve this (assuming chairman and manager left)? Maybe not, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss what may or may not be an incremental gain for AFC within the current parameters that are outwith our control. I believe that Hayes returning would be an incremental gain to our squad on the assumption that he was here to challenge the first 11 rather than assume a guaranteed spot. You seem to be arguing from a parallel universe where we have a different manager and chairman. Basically, I think you should just provide the sack the manager/chairman bit as part of a disclaimer to all your posts but still give your opinion on the raised point within the confines of the existing AFC setup!

Aye, okay, but you must recognise the massive gap between our current squad and a title-winning squad? Even with a few million quid to spend, we're not getting a title-winning squad next season - even if Neil Lennon came in as manager. It's about incremental increases. If we can get Hayes in as squad player challenging the first eleven then that's an incremental increase. If Shinnie and GMS leave then we need two decent midfielders, a left back, a wide player (or two), another striker and a right back to challenge Logan in the summer. If McKenna leaves, then another centre half. If Devlin dies, then another centre half. That's a fair re-build by any stretch. We're going to get signings who are not up to it, as every team does, so having a tried and tested player would surely be a sensible solution to mitigate the inevitable transfer fuck ups? Finally, I don't think Hayes is a journeyman. He's been at the top end of the league's best players in every season he's played in the SPL, who just happens to be not quite good enough for the team that he's getting paid £15-20K per week to play for (but still played more than Morgan or Allan). He's a good professional who will undoubtedly raise the performances of the younger players in our squad if they try to emulate his fitness and approach to the game. Journeyman is definitely not the correct term for Hayes.

It can be, but there are numerous examples of players who haven't been affected by similar injuries though. Considine as an example from our own ranks. To the extent that I don't think you can necessarily state that it'll have an effect. In fact, even in May it doesn't seem to effect his all round play. I see the player that St Johnstone had, but who is just not making the same runs as he was when he was scoring. I don't think he's lost any pace, any strength or any ability, just a timing of run that's poor and has been withered further through deep lack of confidence in his own ability in front of goal. I've always thought/said that his brief purple patch at St Johnstone was the result of a lot of very hard work that took him to the peak of his game. In other words, I don't think it was injury, it was just that he was never that good and - crucially - there didn't seem to be the avenues for improvements to his game that you can see in likes of McKenna or Fraser or even Wright; he was already the best he was going to be. I haven't heard of any adverse affects from his injury on Hayes, just that the Tims have better players in his position and he was always going to struggle to break into that team. Do you think he's better than Ball, Gleeson, McGinn? I do. We're not going to be signing 14 players in the summer, so this type of safe(ish) signing is more pragmatic than retrograde.

Sooo, Venezuala. The old Obama chemical weapons red-line again. You can kill as many of your own citizens as you like, but touch our puppet and you're fucking dead. Luckily all other American interventions in the South of that continent have been a roaring success that championed the people.