Apparently there's a story in one of the papers this morning claiming Bournemouth are in for Lovell. I'm pretty sure he's from down that way too. I reckon letting him go would be a huge mistake, as it would leave us without a proper goalscorer, and Mackie's proven that he doesn't have what it takes to lead the line.

And how long until we are linked with a move for Thomson following his release from Cardiff?  It's going to be a long summer of rumours, 98.75% of which will be gash. 

Would depend if there was an option as a replacement, if we could make a bit of cash I'd let him go to be honest, as long as Mackie is kept as a backup.

Apparently there's a story in one of the papers this morning claiming Bournemouth are in for Lovell. I'm pretty sure he's from down that way too. I reckon letting him go would be a huge mistake, as it would leave us without a proper goalscorer, and Mackie's proven that he doesn't have what it takes to lead the line.

 

I'm with you on that one. Easily the best finisher at the club. He's just never really had a sustained run at it. Like a lot of strikers, Lovell's game is based on confidence, if he wasn't in and out of the side so much, I think we'd have seen more from him.

Apparently there's a story in one of the papers this morning claiming Bournemouth are in for Lovell. I'm pretty sure he's from down that way too. I reckon letting him go would be a huge mistake, as it would leave us without a proper goalscorer, and Mackie's proven that he doesn't have what it takes to lead the line.

 

I'm with you on that one. Easily the best finisher at the club. He's just never really had a sustained run at it. Like a lot of strikers, Lovell's game is based on confidence, if he wasn't in and out of the side so much, I think we'd have seen more from him.

 

We'd be lucky to get more than £200K for him, he'd then do a "Deano", score a barrel-load and get a £2M transfer to a bigger club with us losing out yet again!

Would like to see us with a regular couple of strikers (Lovell being one of these).  The amount of times I've seen 4 people up front for us, all of them trying to go it alone, is ridiculous!  Quit the chopping and changing and get Lovell and Mackie on from the start every week, and let them develop a good partnership. I'm pissed off at having this rotation policy with a bunch of strikers who don't get the opportunity to develop their game with each other!

If this doesn't happen, then I wouldn't be suprised if he jumped at an offer from Bournemouth.

How long is he contracted with the Dons again??

If we keep him I'd rather see Lovell and Miller as the preferred partnership, really really don't rate Mackie. He occasionally pops up in the right place but how many times have we heard "Mackie must score..." then been crushed as he toepokes the ball past an open goal?

 

I'm with you on that one. Easily the best finisher at the club. He's just never really had a sustained run at it. Like a lot of strikers, Lovell's game is based on confidence, if he wasn't in and out of the side so much, I think we'd have seen more from him.

 

Totally agreee. Would love to see Lovell play 20 or 25 games on the trot, I think he would score shit loads. Think about it, when was the last time a Dons striker finished wit 20 goals for the season? Must have been at least 10 years anyway. Remember Stavrum scoring 17 in a young , and fairly poor side.

would love to see the miller lovell partnership givin a run in the 1st 11. wouldnt be too bothered if mackie played on the right either,

As far as i'm concerned it should be Miller and A.N. Other. My preference is for Lovell. Miller has the physical presence and strength to hold up the ball that Mackie and Lovell both lack.

With the 4 guys we have to play up front I am of the opinion that perhaps a single replacement may let 2 go if the right fee and player was to come in.

 

Since we're looking - do we have any strikers in the youth system that show promise?

Apparently there's a story in one of the papers this morning claiming Bournemouth are in for Lovell. I'm pretty sure he's from down that way too. I reckon letting him go would be a huge mistake, as it would leave us without a proper goalscorer, and Mackie's proven that he doesn't have what it takes to lead the line.

 

Easily the best finisher at the club.

 

oh boy - did you see the game last saturday? lovell shoulda bagged a hat-trick. mackie gets pelters too, and his finish was tremendous. people are already mentioning lovell in the same breath as peter van vossen after that show last week.

Craig Dargo is a minky striker that we need, a poacher and strong with his elbows, not affraid to get stuck in.

 

He is out of contract and would easily be within budget. Good goals to games ratio with ICT as well.

That's what we need. We need a "minker" striker. We've got too many ponces. Minker strikers that spring to mind are Stevie Naesmith in his current form ... and Tam McManus in his form of about three years ago. McManus was immense for the Hibees about 3 or 4 years ago. Biggest thing I hated about him was the fact that he was a right jakey tink. Moaned his arse off about every single little thing that didn't go his way.

 

These days, we breed too many panzy strikers. We drastically need to find a right mink from the gutter and bring him up to be a striker. Last decent minker we had was Deano. And he was AWESEOME! Why? Cos he stuck his elbows and studs in everywhere, moaned his arse off about everything, and really really got on the wick of the opposition players and fans.

I'd be quite disappointed if we got rid of Lovell without giving him much of a chance, but I guess getting money now instead of losing him for nothing would be good, but who would we get in? I still think Lovell is much better than Dargo, I don't really rate him much.

 

On the subject of Lovell, I was reading a few old articles about him while he was at Dundee. They mentioned his dating agency/not dating agency website, which I'd heard about elsewhere, they said it was plateparty.com, but it doesn't exist any more. Anyone know anything about it?