Girth Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 7 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said: McCowan's agent is apparently Jackie McNamara. And Jackie McNamara will certainly ensure that Jackie McNamara comes out of the whole thing with a decent wedge. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pens_Dark Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said: McCowan's agent is apparently Jackie McNamara. And Jackie McNamara will certainly ensure that Jackie McNamara comes out of the whole thing with a decent wedge. Consilium Sports Group, of which McNamara is the director. You can see on his Linkedin. So aye...it's him. Edited August 6 by Pens_Dark 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baffled Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 McCowan situation as it is today. Relations between player and club are good. Neither side is “actively” pushing for a move but McCowan will not discuss signing another contract with the club until his current deal expires. However both parties realise that McCowan’s stock has never been higher and that it would take an exceptional 24/25 season to improve that. So. If a deal comes in that is acceptable to both parties he will in all likelihood leave this month. Until that time he is happy and committed to the club. Concern for club is that once this transfer window closes all of the cards sit with the player (as regards the club getting any kind of fee should he sign a pre-contract with another club in January). As regards a replacement should he leave in August, the club has identified a number of players with any move being commensurate with the fee they get for McCowan. There has been contact with Ryan Jack but nothing more than a tentative “how are you doing, would you be interested” conversation. Don’t expect Jack to move anywhere until Kilmarnock’s european fate is known. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnydun Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 Heard a rumour today that Forest are looking at Graham. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 7 minutes ago, johnnydun said: Heard a rumour today that Forest are looking at Graham. Is it Ally Graham? Because an English journalist said they were about to sign him but Cran squashed it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam899 Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 Yeah it’s Ally Graham. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnydun Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 Yeah, I knew what Graham I was talking about. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derrydode25 Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 53 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said: McCowan's agent is apparently Jackie McNamara. And Jackie McNamara will certainly ensure that Jackie McNamara comes out of the whole thing with a decent wedge. It's not apparent, He is his Agent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Girth Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 28 minutes ago, derrydode25 said: It's not apparent, He is his Agent. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomohawk Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 I'm resigned to losing McCowan but can't begrudge him looking to move on. That said, he should have his sights set considerably higher than Hibs and I really hope we don't just bend over to some paltry offer (no signs of that as it stands, however). He's been great for us over the past couple of seasons and hope that he'd be welcomed back at Dens for whichever club he moves on to, assuming he stays in Scotland. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derrybiy Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 Regardless of whether he's going or not that's the type of thing he has to say so you can't read too much into it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pens_Dark Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 15 minutes ago, derrybiy said: Regardless of whether he's going or not that's the type of thing he has to say so you can't read too much into it. Yep, that's what I take from it. Standard, open-ended response. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossBFaeDundee Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 Wonder how many questions he's had to brush off today at the open training. Pitch is looking good today at least. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifespud Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 Is this a secret signing emoji? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Scotia Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 51 minutes ago, Fifespud said: Is this a secret signing emoji? Kids getting autographs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC 33 Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 16 hours ago, Ludo*1 said: I can't see Docherty binning the back 3. It served us well last season and he's pretty much built his squad around it for this season. Can see the argument in ditching it until Robertson is back but still can't see Docherty doing so. I don't think it did serve us well. We let the second most goals in in the league. Can't be playing 5 defenders every week and still shipping goals galore. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 1 minute ago, CC 33 said: I don't think it did serve us well. We let the second most goals in in the league. Can't be playing 5 defenders every week and still shipping goals galore. Still think this was 80% a midfield problem 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derrydode25 Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 25 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said: Still think this was 80% a midfield problem You think the midfield are responsible and to blame for the defenders being absolutely piss poor at the back last season and again on Sunday? Did you see some of the goals we shipped last season? You fully expect your defenders ti do the absolute minimum of the basics. Yeah it's a team game buy when your defenders are posted missing majority of the time. Your f**ked before you even get going. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Algebraist Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 (edited) 22 minutes ago, derrydode25 said: Yeah it's a team game buy when your defenders are posted missing majority of the time. Your f**ked before you even get going. 51 minutes ago, CC 33 said: I don't think it did serve us well. We let the second most goals in in the league. Can't be playing 5 defenders every week and still shipping goals galore. Lots of wet undies in this thread over the last few days. We didn't play well for an hour. It happens. We finished 6th last season and were the opposite of "f**ked before we even get going". In fact we had a habit of getting going very well and then conceding from winning positions. Similarly given we were all very happy with our final league position it suggests our formation did in fact "serve us well". I don't think playing five at the back is a defensive formation particularly, nowadays it tends to be about letting your fullbacks be your attacking width and giving them license to join on their side of the box when the ball is crossed. Beck a huge attacking threat for us last year and McGhee scored five times doing exactly this. I can't remember him getting on the end of a Beck cross particularly but it wouldn't surprise me. I am not saying things should never change, or we can't be tighter at the back or whatever, but we shouldn't start ripping things up because of an hour of lacklustre football. Edited August 6 by The Algebraist 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pens_Dark Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 5 minutes ago, The Algebraist said: Lots of wet undies in this thread over the last few days. We didn't play well for an hour. It happens. We finished 6th last season and were the opposite of "f**ked before we even get going". In fact we had a habit of getting going very well and then conceding from winning positions. Similarly given we were all very happy with our final league position it suggests our formation did in fact "serve us well". I don't think playing five at the back is a defensive formation particularly, nowadays it tends to be about letting your fullbacks be your attacking width and giving them license to join on their side of the box when the ball is crossed. Beck a huge attacking threat for us last year and McGhee score five times doing exactly this. I can't remember him getting on the end of a Beck cross particularly but it wouldn't surprise me. I am not saying things should never change, or we can't be tighter at the back or whatever, but we shouldn't start ripping things up because of an hour of lacklustre football. Like I said a few posts ago, you can play whatever formation you want but if the players don't perform then it doesn't matter what formation you roll out. 3-5-2 did us well last season. Changing the 3-5-2 when it needed changing also did us well. Docherty wants to play that way and it did us no harm last season. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.