Ronald Hernández

[muttonhumper]

 

Lots of negativity on here after his debut back in the pre-Covid days.

 

What say ye noo after yesterday's match?

I thought he stood out as our best player. Solid as fuck.

Perhaps the only redeeming feature of yesterday's shit fest.

Though possibly add in the Leeds Lampost as a positive factor too. Looked capable.

[strachanmcgheegoal]

Were it not for the predictable sending off Id have given it to Consi but yes happy enough defensively which was everyone’s concern.  Big McGinn shaped hole in front of him though As Derek tries to accommodate his two left wingers.

[Chewie37]

Looks like he could be decent after all, seemed more comfortable after being here a bit longer and certainly wasn't nervous 

[Sheepo]

I thought he was poor at the goal when he was caught to far up the pitch and his man got in behind, but apart from that he looked good, quick and solid enough. Needs a run of games. If he has to play Logan next week it should be at left back

[Sydney_Red]

He looks like a fuckin 12 year old. But I liked his performance - didn’t look out ofplace and got up the park well in second half. We played something approaching football when him and hedges combined late on.

[Tord31]

I agree he was a positive yesterday. Let's see how he gets on in the next two

[Sonoftherock]

Looks promising for sure... maybe one the few who could come out with any positives.

[strachanmcgheegoal]

You’d think he’d go Hayes at Left Back with Kennedy in front of him. Needs the same on the right and then the new Leeds boy to say what kind of feed he’s looking for.  Knowing Dereks stubbornness I’ll be surprised if he switches out Ojo, Ferguson or Bryson unless injury dictates.

[aberdeen1970]

Unfortunately he'd rather play 2 defensive midfielders in the three than the other way round. 

 

We're more likely to get three defensive midfielders than one. 

 

[The_Next_Legend]

Money well spent.....? Seems to be frozen out completely at the mo.

I still have high hopes he will become good but we all know what McInnes is like with favouritism and player selection, if Ronnie has rubbed him up the wrong way, will take some undoing but hopefully if that is the caset then Cormack can tell McInnes to wise up and give the lad another chance. Even more so if the fee we payed is true.

[Tord31]

I think a lot of us are desperate for him to be a success.

It's all a bit strange.

[sooth_stander]

22 minutes ago, Tord31 said:

 

It's all a bit strange.

Nae twa doots aboot that.

We pay a Paul Bernard equivalent fee for him, in a total non McInnes strategic way, in a position that was not really required, then he plays an hour of the first game he was available, looked average at best, then since then, he’s played, phit, 25 mins?

Dave Cormack has been very open with just about everything on the table this year, so I think we are due an explanation on this one too.

[Sonoftherock]

12 minutes ago, sooth_stander said:

Nae twa doots aboot that.

We pay a Paul Bernard equivalent fee for him, in a total non McInnes strategic way, in a position that was not really required, then he plays an hour of the first game he was available, looked average at best, then since then, he’s played, phit, 25 mins?

Dave Cormack has been very open with just about everything on the table this year, so I think we are due an explanation on this one too.

As I've said elsewhere, there is no danger that McInnes signed this player.  I know he's claimed that he's been following Hernandez for some time... but it doesn't add up.

McInnes usually goes for British and Irish players - he's openly admitted this!  If he goes after foreign players, he usually prefers that they're proven and can handle themselves in British game.  He's quite cautious in his respect and doesn't like to take chances - he loves to go back in for previous targets! He also typically favours a physical style of player. 

So, he suddenly decides to spend a record transfer fee on an unknown midget south american, from the Norwegian leagues?  I don't think so.

[Tord31]

I keep assuming we didnt actually pay £800k at all and there is a bit of a story to be had

[Ten Caat]

6 minutes ago, Tord31 said:

I keep assuming we didnt actually pay £800k at all and there is a bit of a story to be had

Why would Cormack specifically mention that figure if indeed we had paid less? It's not as if we can hide the figure...it will show up in the accounts. 

I do believe there is a story to be had though....and my own opinion is that McInnes has had absolutely nothing to do in sanctioning the transfer. Going forward from that assumption, it's easy to come up with a conspiracy theory that he's been bought, either as a "trial" if you like, to see if he might be an asset that Atlanta can take off our hands in future at a fee that makes us a bit of a profit, but not what we might achieve on the open market. 

I also find it strange that our go to formation has suddenly become a 3-5-1-1 (3-5-2 if you like). A formation that might not be altogether advantageous to a full back (sure within that system a full back could fulfil a wing-back role....but we have an absolute surfeit of midfielders). There are reasons defenders become defenders as opposed to midfielders or strikers and a fair amount of it is that they're just not as good footballers as those playing in positions further forward. (I accept physicality has a role to play in too, plus there are some notable exceptions who were excellent footballers despite playing in defence)

If he still finds himself an outcast by the time of the next international break (and in the interim a hushed up injury doesn't become known) then I think we really have to start worrying about what we have done.

[Ernie McCracken]

This also demonstrates how tight Aberdeen and the press are (especially the local press), as noone is saying fuck all about it. 

Maybe its just that no one gives a shit, but if a club in England didn't play someone who was their most expensive signing in the last 20 years, then pundits and papers would be asking whats going on. 

 

 

[sooth_stander]

26 minutes ago, Ten Caat said:

Why would Cormack specifically mention that figure if indeed we had paid less? It's not as if we can hide the figure...it will show up in the accounts. 

I do believe there is a story to be had though....and my own opinion is that McInnes has had absolutely nothing to do in sanctioning the transfer. Going forward from that assumption, it's easy to come up with a conspiracy theory that he's been bought, either as a "trial" if you like, to see if he might be an asset that Atlanta can take off our hands in future at a fee that makes us a bit of a profit, but not what we might achieve on the open market. 

I also find it strange that our go to formation has suddenly become a 3-5-1-1 (3-5-2 if you like). A formation that might not be altogether advantageous to a full back (sure within that system a full back could fulfil a wing-back role....but we have an absolute surfeit of midfielders). There are reasons defenders become defenders as opposed to midfielders or strikers and a fair amount of it is that they're just not as good footballers as those playing in positions further forward. (I accept physicality has a role to play in too, plus there are some notable exceptions who were excellent footballers despite playing in defence)

If he still finds himself an outcast by the time of the next international break (and in the interim a hushed up injury doesn't become known) then I think we really have to start worrying about what we have done.

The takeaway from all of that is, what exactly does Atlanta’s involvement at AFC, at boardroom level, entail? Because there is no doubt at all in my mind that Hernandez’s transfer has EVERYTHING to do with this.

Is he actually their player, but effectively loaned to us? 

Does Cormack have a stake in Atlanta?

[Tord31]

37 minutes ago, Ten Caat said:

Why would Cormack specifically mention that figure if indeed we had paid less? It's not as if we can hide the figure...it will show up in the accounts. 

I do believe there is a story to be had though....and my own opinion is that McInnes has had absolutely nothing to do in sanctioning the transfer. Going forward from that assumption, it's easy to come up with a conspiracy theory that he's been bought, either as a "trial" if you like, to see if he might be an asset that Atlanta can take off our hands in future at a fee that makes us a bit of a profit, but not what we might achieve on the open market. 

I also find it strange that our go to formation has suddenly become a 3-5-1-1 (3-5-2 if you like). A formation that might not be altogether advantageous to a full back (sure within that system a full back could fulfil a wing-back role....but we have an absolute surfeit of midfielders). There are reasons defenders become defenders as opposed to midfielders or strikers and a fair amount of it is that they're just not as good footballers as those playing in positions further forward. (I accept physicality has a role to play in too, plus there are some notable exceptions who were excellent footballers despite playing in defence)

If he still finds himself an outcast by the time of the next international break (and in the interim a hushed up injury doesn't become known) then I think we really have to start worrying about what we have done.

It will indeed show up in the accounts. I just can't believe we have parted with £800k in 2020 all from Aberdeen FC and then decided to cast him aside so quickly.

Perhaps Aberdeen FC didn't pay £800k. lets just wait and see what the accounts say.

[StandFree1982]

49 minutes ago, Ten Caat said:

Why would Cormack specifically mention that figure if indeed we had paid less? It's not as if we can hide the figure...it will show up in the accounts. 

I do believe there is a story to be had though....and my own opinion is that McInnes has had absolutely nothing to do in sanctioning the transfer. Going forward from that assumption, it's easy to come up with a conspiracy theory that he's been bought, either as a "trial" if you like, to see if he might be an asset that Atlanta can take off our hands in future at a fee that makes us a bit of a profit, but not what we might achieve on the open market. 

I also find it strange that our go to formation has suddenly become a 3-5-1-1 (3-5-2 if you like). A formation that might not be altogether advantageous to a full back (sure within that system a full back could fulfil a wing-back role....but we have an absolute surfeit of midfielders). There are reasons defenders become defenders as opposed to midfielders or strikers and a fair amount of it is that they're just not as good footballers as those playing in positions further forward. (I accept physicality has a role to play in too, plus there are some notable exceptions who were excellent footballers despite playing in defence)

If he still finds himself an outcast by the time of the next international break (and in the interim a hushed up injury doesn't become known) then I think we really have to start worrying about what we have done.

I really don't see McInnes changing our formation just so he doesn't have to play Ronny. Especially since he's not even making the bench and Logan is.  If McInnes was trying to be clever that way and ensuring that Ronny isn't playing "due to formation", he'd at least stick him on the bench in the pretence that it's "tactical". 

[slippers]

Feel a bit sorry for him to be honest. He wasn’t too bad against rangers and they came at us the whole game and are meant to be 1 of the best teams in the league. He wasn’t great against St Johnstone but we were absolutely hopeless that game. Would like to see a little more of him as im still hoping he can be a real asset based on fee and the fact that we are playing a more attacking formation. 

[Big Hat Logan]

Tin foil hats all round. 

[Yorston Vasey]

58 minutes ago, Millertime said:

 aluminium,  actually

Not one of Richard Curtis' best movies..

[afc1903mad]

5 hours ago, slippers said:

Feel a bit sorry for him to be honest. He wasn’t too bad against rangers and they came at us the whole game and are meant to be 1 of the best teams in the league. He wasn’t great against St Johnstone but we were absolutely hopeless that game. Would like to see a little more of him as im still hoping he can be a real asset based on fee and the fact that we are playing a more attacking formation. 

I also thought he was decent against SevCo, but don’t think he gives us as much going forward in the wingback role.

Time will tell though

[Simply Red]

Unreal the amount of over-analysis and conspiracy theories surrounding this situation.

He’s not done well enough in training to merit a place in the squad/side. He’s young, he’s got potential, its a long season. He’ll get his chance.

[Scotty_Toronto]

According to Transfermarkt...

Current market value:

$358Th. 

 

Last update:

Jul 21, 2020

 

Highest market value:

$440Th.  
Jun 12, 2017

[Scotty_Toronto]

https://www.transfermarkt.us/ronald-hernandez/profil/spieler/428745

[maryhilldon]

Canadians ?

[minijc]

Maybe we've signed the wrong player, wouldn't be the first time the mighty Aberdons have done that.

[fine-n-dandy]

18 hours ago, Tord31 said:

I keep assuming we didnt actually pay £800k at all and there is a bit of a story to be had

800,000Kr

[Tord31]

2 minutes ago, fine-n-dandy said:

800,000Kr

that would explain everything. maybe we could just pretend