stumain Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Last season we used 35 differant players during the course of the season. You say we only have room financially for 22-23 players. How many first team players do we have now? Langfield, GonazalesFoster, Mawene, Considine, Mccardle, RobertsonClark, Fyvie, Pawlett, Milsom, Folly, Osbourn, Shaunessey, jackPaton, Mackie, Vernon, Magennis Thats only 19 players, Thats including Robertson, Shaunessey, Jack who the jury is still very much out on. They are way too young to be relying on to be playing 20 times in a season, If we only add three players this will be what we are expecting them to do.It will be interesting to see how we line up over the next few friendlys, who will be starting in the fullback positions? and if we are going to be playing 4-3-3 like we did early on with mcghee....................sigma anyone ouch!! Link to comment
Stoney Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 I'm afraid that is just the way the SPL is going nowadays. I'm fairly certain most teams outside of the Old Firm and Hearts are in the same predicament. We can't afford to have 20+ decent players without filling 25-40% with good youngstars*, which is what we've done. * - Just for you Millertime! Nobodys asking for 20+ decent players, im asking 10 decent players and 10 more that we could rely on out of the 19 players we currently have, who would you class as decent? Less than half? Link to comment
seanthesheep Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Last season we used 35 differant players during the course of the season. You say we only have room financially for 22-23 players. How many first team players do we have now? Langfield, GonazalesFoster, Mawene, Considine, Mccardle, RobertsonClark, Fyvie, Pawlett, Milsom, Folly, Osbourn, Shaunessey, jackPaton, Mackie, Vernon, Magennis Thats only 19 players, Thats including Robertson, Shaunessey, Jack who the jury is still very much out on. They are way too young to be relying on to be playing 20 times in a season, If we only add three players this will be what we are expecting them to do. Brown has stated he wants 2 more signings. I am sure he has loanees up his sleeve as well. Maybe he plans to loan out younger players as well. Brown and Knox aren't stupid Stoney. Start trusting them. Link to comment
Stoney Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 It will be interesting to see how we line up over the next few friendlys, who will be starting in the fullback positions? and if we are going to be playing 4-3-3 like we did early on with mcghee....................sigma anyone ouch!! due to the current team the only way we can put out a good X1 is going for 3-5-2 Gonzo MaweneConsiMccardle FosterMilsomFyvieOsbournClark MackieVernon Link to comment
Stoney Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 Knox isnt stupid, have complete trust in him. Jury is still very much out on brown, and the players he is looking at reminds me a lot on the type of player calderwood was looking at. Link to comment
seanthesheep Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Last season we used 35 differant players during the course of the season. You say we only have room financially for 22-23 players. How many first team players do we have now? Langfield, GonazalesFoster, Mawene, Considine, Mccardle, RobertsonClark, Fyvie, Pawlett, Milsom, Folly, Osbourn, Shaunessey, jackPaton, Mackie, Vernon, Magennis Thats only 19 players, Thats including Robertson, Shaunessey, Jack who the jury is still very much out on. They are way too young to be relying on to be playing 20 times in a season, If we only add three players this will be what we are expecting them to do. How do you work that out. Last time I looked only 11 players can be on the park at any given time. Are you saying you expect 11 of our players to be injured for 20 games a season. Jack, Shauhnessy, etc will probably make up part of the bench at times but again it's usually around 18 named squad on matchdays isn't it and aren't you expected to name so many under 21's on bench too??? With a 23 man squad and 18 players on matchday that leaves 5 players to be injured at any given time. Link to comment
StandFree1982 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 How do you work that out. Last time I looked only 11 players can be on the park at any given time. Are you saying you expect 11 of our players to be injured for 20 games a season. Jack, Shauhnessy, etc will probably make up part of the bench at times but again it's usually around 18 named squad on matchdays isn't it and aren't you expected to name so many under 21's on bench too??? With a 23 man squad and 18 players on matchday that leaves 5 players to be injured at any given time.With Aberdeens track record, i'm expecting 5 players minimum to be injured at any given time!!! It's just Stoney looking at things with the glass not just half empty, but lying broken and bone dry! Link to comment
Stoney Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 How do you work that out. Last time I looked only 11 players can be on the park at any given time. Are you saying you expect 11 of our players to be injured for 20 games a season. Jack, Shauhnessy, etc will probably make up part of the bench at times but again it's usually around 18 named squad on matchdays isn't it and aren't you expected to name so many under 21's on bench too??? With a 23 man squad and 18 players on matchday that leaves 5 players to be injured at any given time. We know folly / langfield are going to be injured for the start of the season. Theres two for a start. Pawlett, Osbourn, Milsom, and Fyvie are made of glass. There are going to be injury's this season. Link to comment
StandFree1982 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 We know folly / langfield are going to be injured for the start of the season. Theres two for a start. Pawlett, Osbourn, Milsom, and Fyvie are made of glass. There are going to be injury's this season.Thats a bit unfair on Fyvie considering he played a lot of games and then broke his leg! I'd agree with you on Pawlett. Dury is out on the other two though. Hopefully Milsom will play at least 80% of the games this season. Link to comment
afc_blockhead Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Knox isnt stupid, have complete trust in him. Jury is still very much out on brown, and the players he is looking at reminds me a lot on the type of player calderwood was looking at. Jesus ! You are fishing , or dont have a clue . Probably fishing . Link to comment
StandFree1982 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Knox isnt stupid, have complete trust in him. Jury is still very much out on brown, and the players he is looking at reminds me a lot on the type of player calderwood was looking at.Well if Brown can get us back to where Calderwood left us off, in terms of league position, then the fans would be delighted!! Link to comment
Stoney Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 He left us with Mulgrew, Tommy Wright, Kerr, Mcdonald etc Link to comment
K-9 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 And Vujadinovic who embarrassed the club with his Hampden 20 odd minute cameo.Then was played from start the week after in the Scottish Cup. Played 13 times after that aswell Link to comment
StandFree1982 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 He left us with Mulgrew, Tommy Wright, Kerr, Mcdonald etcHe also left us in Europe. Link to comment
tup Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Then was played from start the week after in the Scottish Cup. Played 13 times after that aswell To be fair to him he had Diamond screaming in his lug in front of his beloved for most of that 20 minutes, canna have been easy. Link to comment
K-9 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Stoney min. Read the guys post again he couldn't make it any clearer if he tried why we don't need the amount of players you are alluding to. If Afc are to have any sort of quality within the squad then there is only room financially for 22 or 23 players. Don't you get this?Aberdeen used 34 players last season and 29 the season before. Going with 22 or 23 players is huge risk considering fair number of them are kids. Link to comment
Dandyesque Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Last season we used 35 differant players during the course of the season. You say we only have room financially for 22-23 players. How many first team players do we have now? Langfield, GonazalesFoster, Mawene, Considine, Mccardle, RobertsonClark, Fyvie, Pawlett, Milsom, Folly, Osbourn, Shaunessey, jackPaton, Mackie, Vernon, Magennis Thats only 19 players, Thats including Robertson, Shaunessey, Jack who the jury is still very much out on. They are way too young to be relying on to be playing 20 times in a season, If we only add three players this will be what we are expecting them to do. 2 of them played close to or more than 20 games last season - a number you appear to think has some sort of mystical significance A minimum of 2 more signings takes us to 21-22 - Shaunessy may not even be needed - there's still time to loan him out and bring someone else in - which I expect to happen late in August. Link to comment
Dandyesque Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Knox isnt stupid, have complete trust in him. and the players he is looking at reminds me a lot on the type of player calderwood was looking at. I wonder what the reason for that might be? Link to comment
K-9 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Nobodys asking for 20+ decent players, im asking 10 decent players and 10 more that we could rely on out of the 19 players we currently have, who would you class as decent? Less than half?Paton and Robertson for starters should not be anywhere near our first team this coming season but both will no doubt see more game this season than last. I would also add Jack in there aswell but at least he has something about him although more than likely wont get game in centre midfield so will be chucked in as cover out of position. Langfield ideally wont play another game but other keeper is only here 6 months and Brown says will re-instate Langfield at no 1. Magennis, McArdle, Considine are average at best. Pawlett at crossroads in his career which through injury and serious loss of any kind of form, so may not be the saviour out wide many want him to (in fact we were having the exact same conversation last season at this point). Some folk would also add Foster, Clark and Mackie as not everyones favourite but i think they will do a job. A decent first 11 maybe yes but our squad is horrific in both numbers and quality. Link to comment
Dandyesque Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Aberdeen used 34 players last season and 29 the season before. Going with 22 or 23 players is huge risk considering fair number of them are kids. Tell me at which point last season we had a senior squad consisting of 35 players and I'll give up the argument. The number is so high due to a few youngstars making an appearance or two (Low, Grimmer, Fraser, Anderson etc) as well as loanees - some of whom weren't here for the full season - as well as a few stop-gaps due to the exceptional long-term injury list. ifil and Velicka were binned, with Smith, Blackman and McNamee brought in later If we have 8 first teamers out again at some point next season, there's a chance we will do the same again. We do not need a first team squad of 30 though. We COULD have one if we wanted, but they'd ALL be dross. I prefer 22, with at least a few good players thrown in. Link to comment
diamondsr4ever Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Tell me at which point last season we had a senior squad consisting of 35 players and I'll give up the argument. The number is so high due to a few youngstars making an appearance or two (Low, Grimmer, Fraser, Anderson etc) as well as loanees - some of whom weren't here for the full season - as well as a few stop-gaps due to the exceptional long-term injury list. ifil and Velicka were binned, with Smith, Blackman and McNamee brought in later If we have 8 first teamers out again at some point next season, there's a chance we will do the same again. We do not need a first team squad of 30 though. We COULD have one if we wanted, but they'd ALL be dross. I prefer 22, with at least a few good players thrown in. 16 players than can easily get into the 1st 11....and then 4 good youngstars and a mix of probable1st team lads on the fringes. Link to comment
Dandyesque Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Paton and Robertson for starters should not be anywhere near our first team this coming season but both will no doubt see more game this season than last. I would also add Jack in there aswell but at least he has something about him although more than likely wont get game in centre midfield so will be chucked in as cover out of position. Langfield ideally wont play another game but other keeper is only here 6 months and Brown says will re-instate Langfield at no 1. Magennis, McArdle, Considine are average at best. Pawlett at crossroads in his career which through injury and serious loss of any kind of form, so may not be the saviour out wide many want him to (in fact we were having the exact same conversation last season at this point). Some folk would also add Foster, Clark and Mackie as not everyones favourite but i think they will do a job. A decent first 11 maybe yes but our squad is horrific in both numbers and quality. I assume if you think they're not up to scratch, that means we don't have to pay them in line with their contract? Whether or not you rate a player has absolutely nothing to do with it. Thankfully. Link to comment
oilcat Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Last season we used 35 differant players during the course of the season. You say we only have room financially for 22-23 players. How many first team players do we have now? Langfield, GonazalesFoster, Mawene, Considine, Mccardle, RobertsonClark, Fyvie, Pawlett, Milsom, Folly, Osbourn, Shaunessey, jackPaton, Mackie, Vernon, Magennis Thats only 19 players, Thats including Robertson, Shaunessey, Jack who the jury is still very much out on. They are way too young to be relying on to be playing 20 times in a season, If we only add three players this will be what we are expecting them to do. We used all that players last season because towards the end of it Hartley, Mackie, Fyvie, McNamee, McArdle, Pawlett, Folly, Considine were all injured!! Also of that 35 players how many were of the Ryan Fraser/ Mitch Megginson type that McGhee played a couple of games then dumped back to the U19's.......or loaned out in Meggys case or Low and Anderson who made fleeting sub appearances under Broon? Link to comment
Stoneybloke Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Has Brown said anything about McArdle, Vernon and Folly. All on the injured list at the end of the season. Are they in training yet and likely to come back soon? Link to comment
Stoney Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 We COULD have one if we wanted, but they'd ALL be dross. They are already all dross, Apart from Milsom - he's ok, but the team that brown is currently assembling looks f**king dire. Doesnt really matter about numbers, its quality and at this moment in time, a little over two weeks till the season starts - we are lacking in every single department. Link to comment
tup Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Apart from Milsom - he's ok, but the team that brown is currently assembling looks f**king dire. How would you know this exactly? These players have never played together in our lifetimes. Or is this a worthless 'on paper' assessment, based on their values in Football Manager? The team is not fully assembled yet either of course. Link to comment
StandFree1982 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 They are already all dross, Apart from Milsom - he's ok, but the team that brown is currently assembling looks f**king dire. Doesnt really matter about numbers, its quality and at this moment in time, a little over two weeks till the season starts - we are lacking in every single department. f**king hell, you really should just go and support Man United and Barcelona and save the rest of us having to put up with your boring negative whining about EVERYTHING. Link to comment
afc_blockhead Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 They are already all dross, Apart from Milsom - he's ok, but the team that brown is currently assembling looks f**king dire. Doesnt really matter about numbers, its quality and at this moment in time, a little over two weeks till the season starts - we are lacking in every single department. Link to comment
Stoney Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 f**king hell, you really should just go and support Man United and Barcelona and save the rest of us having to put up with your boring negative whining about EVERYTHING. simple, Block my posts Instead of being a prick and moaning about all of them. Same goes for the rest of you dont want to hear what i have to say, block me. Its that simple Link to comment
seanthesheep Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 simple, Block my posts Instead of being a prick and moaning about all of them. Same goes for the rest of you dont want to hear what i have to say, block me. Its that simple I would never block you Stoney. Messageboards need people like you to keep the debates going. However you really don't seem to have a flocking clue about football finances and how it all works. In fact i'd say if someone like you was leading the board then our club would be in admin within 2 seasons. You are already slating Browns new signings without seeing them even kick a ball even though these players come highly rated from people who have watched them play. You continue to moan about lack of signings in certain areas even though our business is NOT finished. You are what i call a "Drama Queen" Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now