Summer 2025 Transfer Window

[Kowalski]

That’s Fletcher Boyd off. 
 

He’ll be at Cove Rangers in 10 years. 

[RicoS321]

15 minutes ago, Kowalski said:

That’s Fletcher Boyd off. 
 

He’ll be at Cove Rangers in 10 years. 

Will we get a cut of the transfer?

[BigAl]

33 minutes ago, Kowalski said:

That’s Fletcher Boyd off. 
 

He’ll be at Cove Rangers in 10 years. 

Thank fuck 

I can stop asking now and relax and enjoy my holiday 

[DantheDon]

Club statement makes it clear that he was pushing for a move. Don’t know what he has been promised at Aston Villa but will be interesting to see if he ever gets a sniff of first team action there. 

[wokinginashearerwonderland]

Pity that Boyd never got more game time.  We're so slow to bring players through in this country....and I know you cannot put half a dozen in the team at the same time.  The 20 minute bit parts I don't think help anybody.  I would contrast what the Dons did with Boyd to what Motherwell did with Lennon Miller.  Miller got 60 odd games (proper appearances) and Motherwell got both the benefit of him as a player in their team plus a far greater fee than AFC achieved with Boyd.  We neither got a decent fee nor anything added to our team and now we will never know if the lad really had it or not.  You would like to think that if he had played a proper run of games that he might have been more inclined to sign a longer deal and if not, would have been sold for more cash.  Surely 10 experienced first team players can carry a youngster in the team for a wee while.  

[RicoS321]

35 minutes ago, wokinginashearerwonderland said:

Pity that Boyd never got more game time.  We're so slow to bring players through in this country....and I know you cannot put half a dozen in the team at the same time.  The 20 minute bit parts I don't think help anybody.  I would contrast what the Dons did with Boyd to what Motherwell did with Lennon Miller.  Miller got 60 odd games (proper appearances) and Motherwell got both the benefit of him as a player in their team plus a far greater fee than AFC achieved with Boyd.  We neither got a decent fee nor anything added to our team and now we will never know if the lad really had it or not.  You would like to think that if he had played a proper run of games that he might have been more inclined to sign a longer deal and if not, would have been sold for more cash.  Surely 10 experienced first team players can carry a youngster in the team for a wee while.  

The question would be whether Motherwell have a route to the first team or if Lennon Miller was just really fucking good? I think it's the latter. 

I really think it needs to be part of a publicised strategy. We're taking through 1-2 players per season with the aim of giving them twenty first team games (or equivalent). Get the manager on board and ask the fans for patience. We should be able to carry a young player in a lot of games. It's strange that we apply double standards to carrying a young player, versus carrying Yengi, Ambrose and the myriad of other pish signings over the years. Boyd could easily have played a dozen games from the bench last season. 

[wee toon red]

The vocal element of our fan base doesn’t have the patience to allow a youngster to develop. Jack Milne is a case in point, and it was Mackenzie before him. They’re not as young as Boyd but it’s the same principle.

[manc_don]

1 hour ago, wee toon red said:

The vocal element of our fan base doesn’t have the patience to allow a youngster to develop. Jack Milne is a case in point, and it was Mackenzie before him. They’re not as young as Boyd but it’s the same principle.

Agreed, there was a risk to introducing them last season when we just kept losing. Don’t agree with it because you learn a lot in adversity but the fans have never been patient and it’s always been biased against local. He’s gone to their academy, will be interesting if he ever makes it into a serious league or will be stuck in league 1 or 2.

[RicoS321]

1 hour ago, manc_don said:

there was a risk to entoriducing them

That does sound risky. And sore. 

[manc_don]

28 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

That does sound risky. And sore. 

Christ, not sure what happened there

[tom_widdows]

1 hour ago, manc_don said:

Christ, not sure what happened there

Kiwi accent finally kicking in

[Elgindon]

On 04/09/2025 at 17:40, wokinginashearerwonderland said:

Pity that Boyd never got more game time.  We're so slow to bring players through in this country....and I know you cannot put half a dozen in the team at the same time.  The 20 minute bit parts I don't think help anybody.  I would contrast what the Dons did with Boyd to what Motherwell did with Lennon Miller.  Miller got 60 odd games (proper appearances) and Motherwell got both the benefit of him as a player in their team plus a far greater fee than AFC achieved with Boyd.  We neither got a decent fee nor anything added to our team and now we will never know if the lad really had it or not.  You would like to think that if he had played a proper run of games that he might have been more inclined to sign a longer deal and if not, would have been sold for more cash.  Surely 10 experienced first team players can carry a youngster in the team for a wee while.  

Keep hearing word that Boyds attitude around and away from the club has been out of order(you wouldnt think it to look at him). So If as reported we got around £1m for him,think weve done well to get that at his age,

  But as said,there should be enough moments in games to blood young players more often

[redordead]

On 04/09/2025 at 17:40, wokinginashearerwonderland said:

Pity that Boyd never got more game time.  We're so slow to bring players through in this country....and I know you cannot put half a dozen in the team at the same time.  The 20 minute bit parts I don't think help anybody.  I would contrast what the Dons did with Boyd to what Motherwell did with Lennon Miller.  Miller got 60 odd games (proper appearances) and Motherwell got both the benefit of him as a player in their team plus a far greater fee than AFC achieved with Boyd.  We neither got a decent fee nor anything added to our team and now we will never know if the lad really had it or not.  You would like to think that if he had played a proper run of games that he might have been more inclined to sign a longer deal and if not, would have been sold for more cash.  Surely 10 experienced first team players can carry a youngster in the team for a wee while.  

Here's a question. Given the upheaval of the last few years, why wouldn't we choose a really good youth side and try to emulate man united by building around them.

It's not more of a gamble than anything else we've been doing and if successful any sales are pure profit. 

If we found out 2011s are winning everything for example, prioritise getting them through the system.

Edited Monday at 12:35 by redordead

[DantheDon]

Thing is having a youth setup costs us a good amount of money. Not sure the exact figures but I thought it was something like 2-3million a year. So the fact none of the players are breaking into the team and anyone half decent is leaving as soon as there is interest from down south is going to make our whole strategy of youth development untenable in the long term. I see it’s being reported Man City are looking at Cooper Masson one of our 16 year olds that I haven’t even heard of. If he goes it’s unlikely we will receive enough to cover the overall cost of the youth development for the year he comes through. 

[wokinginashearerwonderland]

22 minutes ago, DantheDon said:

So the fact none of the players are breaking into the team and anyone half decent is leaving as soon as there is interest from down south is going to make our whole strategy of youth development untenable in the long term. 

Thing is, if the Dons make a habit of having a few young lads in the team then parents will surely encourage their kids to pick us instead of other sides if they can see that the lads will get a genuine chance of breaking through.  If a 16 year old goes down to Man City, his chances of breaking through there are like the odds of winning the lottery.  City can basically have their pick of the world's best youngsters.  We need to actually play these guys though, just sticking them in the first team squad because they are Scottish and signing a load of 24 year old foreigners in the hope of selling one for big money is not the answer.     

[RicoS321]

21 minutes ago, wokinginashearerwonderland said:

Thing is, if the Dons make a habit of having a few young lads in the team then parents will surely encourage their kids to pick us instead of other sides if they can see that the lads will get a genuine chance of breaking through.  If a 16 year old goes down to Man City, his chances of breaking through there are like the odds of winning the lottery.  City can basically have their pick of the world's best youngsters.  We need to actually play these guys though, just sticking them in the first team squad because they are Scottish and signing a load of 24 year old foreigners in the hope of selling one for big money is not the answer.     

The problem with that is Cooper Masson is nowhere near ready for our first team, hence why he's at Kelty. He's among the best in that age group (involved with Scotland setup). If the English teams are coming in at 16-17, then we've got little hope. Boyd looked like a fantastic prospect, but this season is the first where he's looked physically strong enough to get in our first team, and it was obviously known to the club that he wasn't willing to stay by that point. You're really looking at 19 before most players will be strong enough these days, with only a handful of exceptions. Wilson at hearts is an example. Lauded everywhere, but in reality was nowhere near good enough to be playing every week and physically weak. He's now warming the bench. Bowie at Hibs has bulked up and is now showing the talent matched with the athleticism. I don't think that can be rushed through. 

I'd like to see more young players, but I think that the club will have to publicly set a quota so that both manager and player get a bit of breathing space to implement. 

I've said it before, but these young lads don't owe the club anything. We are fairly quick to ditch players we don't want, so we have no right to expect loyalty on the other side. If we can announce that we will be taking a minimum of two academy players into the squad to be playing twenty games (including subs), then players might begin to take note. We've currently got Duncan (not good enough), and Lobban (needs game time now) filling a quota for European football in what appears to be detrimental to their development. 

[DantheDon]

1 hour ago, wokinginashearerwonderland said:

Thing is, if the Dons make a habit of having a few young lads in the team then parents will surely encourage their kids to pick us instead of other sides if they can see that the lads will get a genuine chance of breaking through.

I do think this is somewhat true, but is it not a bit of a catch 22 situation now.