RicoS321

It's entirely acceptable to compare, not acceptable to conflate, which I wasn't. This is a mistake made by politicians and, in turn, football pundits the world over, which means we can't use examples or illustrations to make a point anymore.

Professionalism in and of itself is the issue. It is not competence, and often hides incompetence. There was nothing unprofessional about Warnock in his interview, just no professionalism (with emphasis on the ism). A bit like you don't need managerialism to be a good manager. It goes back to the consultancy issue mentioned earlier, where professionalism is essentially an abstract game, filled with concepts, slogans and specific ways of talking. Taking it too far in the other direction, you get the ignorant man "telling it like it is" that, when questioned, can't go deeper than the "common sense" opinion they spouted. Warnock came across as neither. The only other manager I've seen do that recently was Steve Clarke (outside the scum, as it's utterly irrelevant what they say). As @Slim says, he mentioned setting up to player's strengths, rather than playing a fucking 3-5-2 with Clarkson deep because that's your thing. That is something Clarke did at Killie supremely well, alongside keeping the instructions very straight forward, limiting what each player had to think about (very useful for Greg fucking Stewart, because he's a fucking imbecile). Basically, he had a confidence in his own ability to the extent that he didn't have to deploy the vocabulary too much. There was a little of it, but it's difficult to avoid when the level of questioning is so fucking rancid and you're only just in the door. It remains to be seen if he can maintain the attitude.

I don't mind that, I think football should be fun. As should all employment. They're not our servants. To me, it seemed like he was suggesting that he'd make it enjoyable for the players and fans, rather than himself. However, as @OrlandoDon suggests, he came across as very genuine, which I liked. It's refreshing to see a football manager that isn't bothered by the abstract bullshittery of professionalism. Not giving a fuck is a very healthy place to be in my opinion. You can be very honest, and still work hard because you're doing something you choose to.

All of it. I find it difficult not to smile when someone else is happy. He was clearly happy. Also, it's very clear that he's not done any homework on the Dons, but he didn't pretend otherwise. Basic is fine when you have nothing to say, much better than I'd hoped.

Fuck sake, just watched his first interview, found myself involuntarily smiling. Does he not know that I'm trying my best to dislike him?

Robson got the best out of him last season, I wouldn't blame him. One player came back having developed muscle and strength, the other developed fat. The physical difference in Bojan this season is phenomenal, not just in upper body, but his sprint over 20-30 metres is twice what it was last season. Duk did nothing and arrived back overweight. That's not necessarily a criticism of Duk, there are a million different things that human beings have to cope with in life, and I'm sure being away from home can effect different people in different ways. However, the fact remains that effort seems to be the deciding factor here (although I always thought Bojan was by far the better player).

I've been involved with many of these types of things, and almost always they have failed spectacularly when large consultancies have come in. More often than not, they have a template that they follow (there needs to be, as often they employ graduates with zero practical experience), which generally means implementing expensive systems that they have experience with, regardless of fitness for purpose or existing system compatibility. They skew advice towards areas that they can embed personnel or provide continued consultancy in the longer term. It's usually a bit like weight watchers, where 80% of the customers return (because they've failed). I have no experience of football consultancies, but Dave strikes me as exactly the type of director I used to work with, who'd basically go for the most well known consultancy company (McKinsey, Cap Gemini, one of the big four auditors for comparison in the business/finance world), and they'd offer a fantastic display of professionalism before sending out the cream of the shite to blue sky the fuck out of our out of the boxing. Perhaps there isn't such a thing in fitba, but it would surprise me. There's bound to be a company out there with a list of clients that'd make Dave's legs quiver. I don't know if the Warnock appointment is better or worse than the consultancy thing, it's quite the combination. The most frustrating thing is that I've been defending the club's "strategy" for years now, thinking that they had a fairly clear approach but were just failing because they were getting the wrong people in at the wrong time, and that would be obvious to Cormack and something he'd be comfortable working on. Turns out that we really haven't had a clue these past few years and, worryingly, we don't have the people in house that are capable of understanding and correcting the issues. Aberdeen isn't a massive organisation, I find it bizarre that between our CEO (I like Burrows, and am not sure he can be held responsible for the footballing side), football director, previously successful chairman and our link with another actual football team that nobody can provide any clarity on the way forward and we have to resort to consultants. Are these guys suddenly going to get it in a few months time once the review is over? I don't think so. Are we going to get a review which says that one of these guys wasn't doing their job properly, or that they might need replaced? I wouldn't think so (biting the hand that feeds you is very much frowned upon at consultancy HQ). It reeks of cluelessness and not taking responsibility.

He's an athlete. Covered a lot of ground, and a very sensible decision to play him further forward in the 4-2-3-1. Very raw young player, who couldn't be relied on further back (in the Ramadani role), and didn't look particularly good at football. Would definitely play him tomorrow though for his coverage and work rate. Can't imagine starting him against most other sides.

I think a lot of what you say is reasonable. I just don't see him as a safe manager because he's experienced. If we signed John Hughes or Mark McGhee, none of us would be describing it as safe. That's what Warnock is - the English version. However, he doesn't have the experience of football in this country, which immediately works against him as an interim manager, because of the time constraints. He's less safe than John Hughes. Robson was a tactical fud, but he generally had players playing for him and there seemed to be a togetherness and no lack of effort. We could see on Saturday that the players were working hard and were playing for each other. I think there's a large risk that an arsehole could undermine that. Maybe Warnock has aged well and is no longer a screaming bellend, I don't know. We have guys like Miovski who are in form and need continuity, which I'm sure Leven could have provided for a bit, while we did a proper search. Warnock could really upset a fine balance, with a swearing bull in a China shop approach where it's not needed or wanted. The players could down tools (like butcher at Hibs). For me, I don't see the safety that you point to.

Cormack, you mean? He's John Hughes with less experience of the game in this country. Something which you'd absolutely want in an interim manager. The problems we have at the moment are mainly tactical. Warnock is a giant leap backwards in that regard. As you say, he's also an old firm arse licking wanker. As tlg said, this is the worst appointment since Alex Miller. Reeks.

It's because Cormack genuinely appears to think like (or take advice from) the thick cunt down the pub. The ex-fitba pundit who says absolutely nothing worth hearing. Of course the media will fawn over big name celebrity from England, in the pathetic, obsequious fashion they do. We're the ones that are stuck with England's Mark McGhee though.

Warnock to get sent off for flashing his cock at the fourth official.

It's the complete subservience to the English game that we have up here that puts Warnock anywhere near the frame. He's managed in England! Big clubs! Big name! As if management is in any way similar to playing. It is entirely possible that that a joke manager is a joke manager wherever he goes. Fulfilling this wanker's faux dream to work in Scotland (as if Scotland is one homogeneous place), because he sometimes has his holidays on the West coast. It's fucking embarrassing. I'd far, far rather have John Hughes. At least he's a joker who knows Scottish football. I'd far, far rather we kept Leven in place than any no-mark interim tosser. As for the consultants that will come in and cream us, who are they reporting to? Are they going to be telling Gunn*, for example, that he's actually the problem? Or: Cormack, you're interference in club matters creates an issue? They'll basically come in and ask the staff already there what they think would improve the club, re-word it, sanitise where necessary (in order not to criticise the people that need criticised, who also ensure ongoing consultants fees) and pass it back to Cormack. It's all a touch shambolic. *I keep picking out Gunn, when I don't really know much about the guy. I believe that something better should be coming from his role, but it could be that his role isn't really what we think it should be, so not a slight on the guy himself.

As a consultant myself, I can confirm that all consultants are charlatans looking to charge a fortune for stating the fucking obvious. The fucking obvious, to everyone apart from the guy in charge who doesn't trust his employees. It helps the consultant immensely when those employees are yes-men, too frightened to question the boss.

That was an enjoyable game today. We were very nervy in the first half, Roos especially. We were excellent in the second. It was a little kamikaze, but not too kamikaze, and we had plenty of opportunity to win it. Unsurprisingly, Shinnie and Barron as a pairing works really well, with both playing very well. I really felt for Shinnie being the one who it fell to on his wrong foot, he was really good otherwise. Overall, the setup was good and the subs very sensible. Miovski is just phenomenal, best striker at pittodrie this century, a joy to watch. Whatever was said at halftime worked, we pressed higher and they couldn't cope.

Peter Leven. Sorted.

Expecting big things today. The new manager, em, Peter.... Levein? Leaven? Leaving? is bound to have the lads riled up for this one.

There's a strong chance that they will be shite. We've got a poor squad and we're a window behind. Warnock strikes me as the type of signing Cormack would make because he thinks Dons fans would love a "big name" EPL manager. He's probably in the same bracket as those weirdos outside pittodrie giving it the Lennon chat. It wouldn't surprise me if the Warnock story was fed to the P&J by Cormack to sound out opinion.

He was saved by scheduling and bad weather. Had we got a result against hearts (which our first half performance deserved), then he'd have been safe for another few weeks. I'm of the opinion that a manager should be given every opportunity to fail, because in the long run an extra few games shouldn't matter. I think the fact that the players hadn't downed tools (like they did for Goodwin) probably helped too. Had we fired Robson after St Mirren, we probably wouldn't have replaced him by now anyway, given last season's process. Either way, we have a model in place that managers and windows shouldn't matter. We should have targets identified and ready to be pursued. Robson wouldn't have had significant input into guys like Rubezic and Gueye etc, nor do we need him to have anything more than sign off on anyone in January. He didn't have any input in selling Ramadani clearly either, so there's plenty we currently - correctly - take out of the manager's hands. We were told the outgoing recruitment head had done his research and this window wouldn't be affected. Unless we're changing our model back to the McInnes one, then we shouldn't be considering what a new manager may or may not want, we should have the confidence in our recruitment to keep things moving.

Round up from the previous window, ignoring loanees made permanent: Doohan - pass Rubezic - success Gartenmann - success Jensen - success Williams - fail Dadia - fail Gueye - fail McGarry - fail Sokler - success Devlin - success McGrath - success I'm counting anyone who's managed to hold down first team minutes or provide something worthwhile from the bench (Sokler) as a success, which is generous, I know. Don't think I've missed anyone. A 60% return is quite a successful window all things considered. Obviously, guys like McGrath and Devlin were known quantities, possibly not subjected to the rigours of our recruitment process, and bolster the numbers a little, but they all count. We failed to pick up any real standouts that will be sellable assets for the future (maybe Rubezic, if he can settle down a little, he certainly has the attributes). A massive turnover in the summer again I expect, so hopefully the new recruitment team will be settled, and have had time to work with a new manager. I expect what will actually happen is that we get some grifter in until summer, then dick about for eight weeks before signing a new manager the day before the window closes, with our recruitment head having just left the previous week.

It's great that we've moved on from "player X returning from injury, is like a new signing" to "player X not leaving is like a new signing". There can't be much of a barrel left to scrape. A fucking disastrous window, and even the BBC are taking the pish by having Robson in our ins and outs list. We were told that it didn't matter that out recruitment guy was leaving at the end of January because all the work was already done, with targets in place. Fuck knows where they got the plural from in targets. We got the guy who we'd already tried to get in the summer. The cluelessness is stretching so fucking deep that we're considering Neil fucking Warnock until summer. The English John Hughes, a joke figure who's been to Scotland before and really likes it up there.

Ach, it's just the Aberdeen press trying to unsettle their most talented asset ahead of Saturday's fixture.

A shite Mikey Johnston? Sounds terrible.

Aye, it appears I misread the BBC article yesterday! I did wonder why we were still being linked with Kerr. Personally, I think a January window should remain in January.

A disgraceful window like, and shows that nobody at the club has learned anything. The whole point in our supposed recruitment setup is that much/most of the responsibility is taken away from the manager. The idea being that we have a large degree (as much as you can have in the transfer market) of certainty over signings, regardless of who the manager is. The window is about keeping things ticking over, getting rid of a few players and experimenting with new ones. January doesn't have to be a big one, but two players in would have been the minimum I'd have expected regardless of the manager. By not getting a winger, we've completely limited the options of the new manager, and by not keeping things ticking over, it's basically like being one or two short already in the summer. As we've seen since McInnes left, that makes the new manager a window behind at the outset, but we won't give him a window leeway to get it right (I'm not necessarily saying that the others should have got another window, just that they were very hard done by). The last three summers have seen a 10+ turnover over players because of this. We have a slightly more settled team this season, but we're probably still going to be looking at 8+ signings, which means at least 12 in to get 8 worthwhile players. That includes the likely loss of Miovski and Duk (or Duk just continuing to be like having a player missing). Players who won't, or shouldn't, be here next season: Roos Gartenmann (he might sign) MacDonald McGarry Morris Barron Besuijen Richardson Gueye Miovski Duk Phillips That's anything from 8-12 above that will be leaving. Anything between 3-5 of those who'd start. That's a massive turnover, and if you're looking at that as a person coming in, you'd probably pass. Of course, the board will tell us that they'll back the manager, but that's utterly meaningless unless it occurs over at least two windows, as the margin for error in the transfer window is huge and largely has nothing to do with the manager. Unless that manager has strong experience of Scottish football, and bringing players into our game, it's unlikely that they'll get higher than 50% success rate. That's why I thought we had the model that transcended the manager and our recruitment team could ably tide things over where the manager was on a shoogly peg. Just one first team recruit (a fucking winger for fuck sake!) could have saved the manager a world of hassle in the summer.