Aberdeen sack Derek McInnes

[NEM]

3 hours ago, Byrne Baby Byrne said:

Did an excellent job at Motherwell, Hibs, Rangers, Scotland and Birmingham and has been terrible since. Wouldn't take him at Aberdeen.

He had absolutely nothing to do with the tax scandal at Rangers. Absolutely ridiculous to think he would have any knowledge of what any of that means. "I want to buy this player" then finances are worked out by others. Do you really think a football manager arranges any financials, let alone EBT loopholes to secure players like Gregory Vignal? 

Apart from personally receiving millions via EBT's?  

[sooth_stander]

13 minutes ago, NEM said:

Apart from personally receiving millions via EBT's?  

Correct. Completely illogical to say Mcleish HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH EBTs. He would have had to draw down his own EBT in order to access the dough. Now, maybe he leaves all that shit to his accountant or financial advisor, but McLeish is/was not stupid, unlike Calderwood, McLeish would have known EXACTLY how an EBT works.

[shooftahmooftah]

What a heap of crap you talk Mcinnes.  Re your quote in the evening express today.   (  Criticism has affected my players performances. )  It ain’t affected your performances Mcinnes, you’ve lost the meaning of it.     Worst record in the 118 years of Aberdeen FC history of the ball being unable to hit the back of the oppositions net.   That’s not only your teams inept performances, explain to them if you can they are men now and have to take criticism on the chin not like the dildo with the fuzz on his chin who squirms out of his inability to beat teams that on paper are not as talented as his team of lassies.   

[Byrne Baby Byrne]

1 hour ago, NEM said:

Apart from personally receiving millions via EBT's?  

Aye

Apart from that minor detail

Would he have known what it was and that it was illegal? I da ken. I also da care. McLeish remains a Dons legend but certainly should not be our next manager is my only statement

[Tord31]

I shake my head when folk criticise the manager along the lines of 'ross county can beat Celtic why cant we. they showed how its done'.

Probably true but for me it would not make it in to a top 20 reasons to get rid of mcinnes.

[ericblack4boss]

McLeish had health issues that really he needs to be out of football with, the "disturbing" occurance on international duty is bad enough but if this was to happen at club level then it would finish the poor cunt, 

And yes he's bastardised himself by managing those cunts, also did he not appoint Roy purple hair Aitken at villa 

[Byrne Baby Byrne]

28 minutes ago, ericblack4boss said:

Roy purple hair Aitken

This is a new one

[Ernie McCracken]

33 minutes ago, Byrne Baby Byrne said:

This is a new one

It was clear that Aitken wasn't the man for the job when he wasn't willing to get dreadlocks per Gavin Rossdale's request. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tord31 said:

I shake my head when folk criticise the manager along the lines of 'ross county can beat Celtic why cant we. they showed how its done'.

Probably true but for me it would not make it in to a top 20 reasons to get rid of mcinnes.

No, it's not a reason to get rid of him. It's more just dispelling the "budgets" myth, as the only club that seems remotely arsed about that is us. 

[paddy]

Speaking of Aitken - in terms of honours, he has achieved the same as McInnes.

[Tord31]

When the 200 year dvd is released then mcinnes and aitken are equals. For the next 10-20 years McInnes is 5 times better than Aitken

[paddy]

9 hours ago, Millertime said:

What point are you trying to make there?

Want you to clarify before I annihilate it

Just saying that Aitken and McInnes have the same number of honours to their name at Aberdeen....1 league cup.

Not really anything to debate. 

[afc_blockhead]

16 hours ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

No, it's not a reason to get rid of him. It's more just dispelling the "budgets" myth, as the only club that seems remotely arsed about that is us. 

All clubs fans talk about budgets when it suits them (including Celtic and Sevco when they get humped in europe).

Also surely over achieving consistently against your budget is more of a measurement than winning 1 off games? 

[StandFree1982]

35 minutes ago, afc_blockhead said:

All clubs fans talk about budgets when it suits them (including Celtic and Sevco when they get humped in europe).

Also surely over achieving consistently against your budget is more of a measurement than winning 1 off games? 

That's definitely not McInnes then. We've had maybe one season where we have "over achieved" due to budget and that was the second season Sevco were in the Premiership and we finished 2nd.  

2013-14 - 3rd (Underachieved) (Potentially "overachieved" by winning a cup, but beating  Alloa, Falkirk, Motherwell, St Johnstone and Inverness is hardly groundbreaking)

2014-15 - 2nd (Achieved)

2015-16  - 2nd (Achieved)

2016-17  - 2nd (Achieved)

2017-18  - 2nd (Overachieved)

2018-19 - 4th (Underachieved)

2019 - 20 - 4th (Underachieved)

2020-21 - 4th (Underachieving)

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, afc_blockhead said:

All clubs fans talk about budgets when it suits them (including Celtic and Sevco when they get humped in europe).

Also surely over achieving consistently against your budget is more of a measurement than winning 1 off games? 

Bit of both, I'd say. 
 

Do Aberdeen consistently overachieve? The only times I can think we overachieved under McInnes is when we finished 2nd ahead of the huns in 16/17 and 17/18. The 17/18 season also coincided with two cup defeats to an aggregate score of 0-6, so partially underachieved. 
 

Other than that, we've generally achieved what should be expected, and more recently underachieved. 
 

Our fans consistently mention budgets in defence of the manager, it's infuriating. Our players also mention budgets more than any other players in the league, it feels. Every step of the way our encouragement and expectations are curbed by talk of budgets, yet everyone marvels at the likes of Livi having a great season, in spite of the relative pittance they pay. 
 

For sure, over the course of a season it'll have an impact, but it shouldn't even be in the thought process of any AFC player, manager or fan. In one off games we should be able to at least be combative and effective against the Old Firm, especially at home. 

[StandFree1982]

13 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

Bit of both, I'd say. 
 

Do Aberdeen consistently overachieve? The only times I can think we overachieved under McInnes is when we finished 2nd ahead of the huns in 16/17 and 17/18. The 17/18 season also coincided with two cup defeats to an aggregate score of 0-6, so partially underachieved. 
 

Other than that, we've generally achieved what should be expected, and more recently underachieved. 
 

Our fans consistently mention budgets in defence of the manager, it's infuriating. Our players also mention budgets more than any other players in the league, it feels. Every step of the way our encouragement and expectations are curbed by talk of budgets, yet everyone marvels at the likes of Livi having a great season, in spite of the relative pittance they pay. 
 

For sure, over the course of a season it'll have an impact, but it shouldn't even be in the thought process of any AFC player, manager or fan. In one off games we should be able to at least be combative and effective against the Old Firm, especially at home. 

The issue I have with us vs Rangers and Celtic is that we never really look like we're even TRYING to get a positive result. We have constantly been setting a team out to stop them from winning the game, rather than setting us up to win the game ourselves.

Also, see my other post. There's only 1 or 2 occasions where we've "overachieved". League wise, just once. 

I am not sure i'd class winning the league cup that season as overachieving, going by the sides we had to beat and that we had to take 2 sides to pens! Not that it takes anything off the win, it's just I wouldn't classify it as a "overachieving". 

[Byrne Baby Byrne]

17 minutes ago, StandFree1982 said:

That's definitely not McInnes then. We've had maybe one season where we have "over achieved" due to budget and that was the first season Sevco were in the Premiership and we finished 2nd.  

2013-14 - 3rd (Underachieved)

2014-15 - 2nd (Achieved) (Potentially "overachieved" by winning a cup, but surely that's a goal to win something, eventually!)

2015-16  - 2nd (Achieved)

2016-17  - 2nd (Achieved)

2017-18  - 2nd (Overachieved)

2018-19 - 4th (Underachieved)

2019 - 20 - 4th (Underachieved)

2020-21 - 4th (Underachieving)

You think we under achieved finishing 3rd in 2014? We had just finished 9th, 9th, 9th & 8th. Motherwell had finished something like 3rd, 2nd, 2nd. Was hardly underachieving, we were fucking shite leading up to that season and Motherwell were a good team. United and Inverness' teams were very good too. 

Also we finished 2nd above Rangers twice. In 16/17 we finished well ahead of Rangers, then the season after that it went right down to the wire with Consi's winner at Celtic Park.

While I'm having an unprovoked attack on your post you have also got our cup winning season wrong. Haha - I think thats me done

[StandFree1982]

1 minute ago, Byrne Baby Byrne said:

You think we under achieved finishing 3rd in 2014? We had just finished 9th, 9th, 9th & 8th. Motherwell had finished something like 3rd, 2nd, 2nd. Was hardly underachieving, we were fucking shite leading up to that season and Motherwell were a good team. United and Inverness' teams were very good too. 

Also we finished 2nd above Rangers twice. In 16/17 we finished well ahead of Rangers, then the season after that it went right down to the wire with Consi's winner at Celtic Park.

While I'm having an unprovoked attack on your post you have also got our cup winning season wrong. Haha - I think thats me done

Doh. 

Apart from that, I think that one season with the Celtic Park winner was overachieving. The first one, Rangers were just promoted so guess that wouldn't really be classed as an achievement. They were rotten. 

[Byrne Baby Byrne]

8 minutes ago, StandFree1982 said:

Doh. 

Apart from that, I think that one season with the Celtic Park winner was overachieving. The first one, Rangers were just promoted so guess that wouldn't really be classed as an achievement. They were rotten. 

Their budget was still about 5 times ours though. They had been building a team up for years and had made it to the Scottish Cup final at Celtics expense the season before.

This goes back to what someone else said... budgets only seem to matter when it suits our own arguments 

[strachanmcgheegoal]

Apropos of nothing other than a tenuous link to the “entertaining football” arguement.  With a minute or so to go In the Brighton Crystal Palace game last night the stats were 46-3 for shots taken for the two games between the sides this season.  Aggregate score was 2-2 (two 1-1 draws).  Then Benteke scored with Palace’s 4th shot right at the end.  Funny old game.  You get off with it a/ if you avoid being relegated, b/ you remain in the EPL money bath and crucially c/ you’re winning or at least not getting beat.

[StandFree1982]

12 minutes ago, Byrne Baby Byrne said:

Their budget was still about 5 times ours though. They had been building a team up for years and had made it to the Scottish Cup final at Celtics expense the season before.

This goes back to what someone else said... budgets only seem to matter when it suits our own arguments 

So had we. We had a side that was competing at the top end of the league, there's was a team just up from playing Championship football. 

You're contradicting yourself here. In your last post you were saying we were "over achieving" if we ended up above Motherwell because they had a few successful seasons under their belt and we were basically a team on the up due to new manager, and now you're saying that Aberdeen (who would be motherwell in the first case) shouldn't be above Rangers (Aberdeen in the above case) in that first season?! 

 

regardless....the point is that under McInnes we have rarely over-achieved. 

[Clydeside_Sheep]

21 hours ago, NEM said:

Mcleish has already shat on his - jakey hun bastard

I concur.

He would be well received by some and would live off of that, the subsequent lack of pressure meaning he had ample time to be out boozing, getting drinks bought for him etc.

I wouldn't take him, he would be at best a stop gap, whereas we are looking to progress.

Ages ago, I suggested Peter Grant (you might call him a McLeish protege, in his post playing career) as a possible candidate.

He has the background in Scottish football, reasonably successful player in Scotland/England, capped, he has a wealth of coaching / backroom experience in Scotland/England and even a bit at international level (much of this working with McLeish).  He isn't from the the "fat jakey hun" mould which dominates the candidacy for most jobs in Scotland.

He has never really been tried so far as a manager, beyond a brief year at Norwich ages ago, and his current job at Alloa.  Unlike those sides in their respective leagues, we would offer a platform and resource to achieve something.

Plus, the huns would hate him.

 

[Byrne Baby Byrne]

18 minutes ago, StandFree1982 said:

So had we. We had a side that was competing at the top end of the league, there's was a team just up from playing Championship football. 

You're contradicting yourself here. In your last post you were saying we were "over achieving" if we ended up above Motherwell because they had a few successful seasons under their belt and we were basically a team on the up due to new manager, and now you're saying that Aberdeen (who would be motherwell in the first case) shouldn't be above Rangers (Aberdeen in the above case) in that first season?! 

 

regardless....the point is that under McInnes we have rarely over-achieved. 

I'm not contradicting myself.... I literally raised that point as an example of why yours doesn't work! Motherwell had a side that were competing at the top end of the league and we were at the bottom end. But we under achieved finishing 3rd? I don't think we under or over achieved that season. 

To be fair, it doesn't really matter. I'm just adding my opinion as a matter of procrastination 

[Ten Caat]

1 hour ago, StandFree1982 said:

Doh. 

Apart from that, I think that one season with the Celtic Park winner was overachieving. The first one, Rangers were just promoted so guess that wouldn't really be classed as an achievement. They were rotten. 

Yes they were rotten. But a few of the "expert" pundits still tipped them to immediately become champions. They really did believe the breadman was some sort of tactical genius.

Their budget that season was about 3-4 times what ours was. So I'd say we did overachieve

[Henry]

49 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

 

Ages ago, I suggested Peter Grant (you might call him a McLeish protege, in his post playing career) as a possible candidate.

He has the background in Scottish football, reasonably successful player in Scotland/England, capped, he has a wealth of coaching / backroom experience in Scotland/England and even a bit at international level (much of this working with McLeish).  He isn't from the the "fat jakey hun" mould which dominates the candidacy for most jobs in Scotland.

He has never really been tried so far as a manager, beyond a brief year at Norwich ages ago, and his current job at Alloa.  Unlike those sides in their respective leagues, we would offer a platform and resource to achieve something.

Plus, the huns would hate him.

 

Weegie ✅

Ex-Celtic ✅

Catholic ✅

Why not suggest the ghost of Tommy Burns min

[aberdeen1970]

Aye if you are using the budgets as a measurable for league positions then he's over achieved by one position twice and under achieved by one position 3 times (potentially 4 by the end of the season).  He's par for the rest. 

It doesn't tell the entire story though. McInnes will argue that the end justifies the means but others will argue that we could have achieved the same with a different style of football, particularly in the last couple of years. 

Cup success is harder to quantify but I'd suggest that only one win over the period would be under par. And that was very early in his reign.  I think he's at least one cup win short of par but appreciate that is subjective. 

[WesthillWanderersFC]

1 hour ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

I concur.

He would be well received by some and would live off of that, the subsequent lack of pressure meaning he had ample time to be out boozing, getting drinks bought for him etc.

I wouldn't take him, he would be at best a stop gap, whereas we are looking to progress.

Ages ago, I suggested Peter Grant (you might call him a McLeish protege, in his post playing career) as a possible candidate.

He has the background in Scottish football, reasonably successful player in Scotland/England, capped, he has a wealth of coaching / backroom experience in Scotland/England and even a bit at international level (much of this working with McLeish).  He isn't from the the "fat jakey hun" mould which dominates the candidacy for most jobs in Scotland.

He has never really been tried so far as a manager, beyond a brief year at Norwich ages ago, and his current job at Alloa.  Unlike those sides in their respective leagues, we would offer a platform and resource to achieve something.

Plus, the huns would hate him.

 

Fuck that for a suggestion.

I’d rather have Russell Grant as manager. 

[WesthillWanderersFC]

6 minutes ago, aberdeen1970 said:

Aye if you are using the budgets as a measurable for league positions then he's over achieved by one position twice and under achieved by one position 3 times (potentially 4 by the end of the season).  He's par for the rest. 

It doesn't tell the entire story though. McInnes will argue that the end justifies the means but others will argue that we could have achieved the same with a different style of football, particularly in the last couple of years. 

Cup success is harder to quantify but I'd suggest that only one win over the period would be under par. And that was very early in his reign.  I think he's at least one cup win short of par but appreciate that is subjective. 

Aye. 
i agree

To not win the Cup the year we beat the filth at Parkhead in the QF, only to lose to Stevie May in the SF, was piss poor.

If he’d won the Scottish Cup you’d have said two trophies in 8 years on top of the Euro qualification would’ve seen him as been a successful manager.

 

[Clydeside_Sheep]

18 minutes ago, Henry said:

Why not suggest the ghost of Tommy Burns min

There's already rumours he is going back to sellick, when they get shot of Lennon.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

5 minutes ago, WesthillWanderersFC said:

I’d rather have Russell Grant as manager. 

?