Hibernian's Next Permanent Manager

[RandomGuy.]

2 minutes ago, Darren said:

I'm not sure Kilmarnock finish comfortably in the top six if either/both are sold or even get injured. Things can turn pretty quickly. The way people are talking, McInnes is on to a guaranteed good thing at Killie next season.

They bring Deas and Greg Stewart into the starting line up then, I'd imagine.

Killie are absolutely stacked squad wise.

Everyone desperate to talk them down with "ifs and buts" of things going wrong, as if McInnes hasn't built squads to be top 6 regulars before with all the same pitfalls.

There's more chance Hibs get relegated next season then finish above a McInnes-led Kilmarnock IMO.

[VincentGuerin]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

They bring Deas and Greg Stewart into the starting line up then, I'd imagine.

Killie are absolutely stacked squad wise.

Everyone desperate to talk them down with "ifs and buts" of things going wrong, as if McInnes hasn't built squads to be top 6 regulars before with all the same pitfalls.

There's more chance Hibs get relegated next season then finish above a McInnes-led Kilmarnock IMO.

[Sortmeout]

5 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Another laddie that hasn't read the posts and just jumped in.

What's in the water today?

I have read all your posts and you do mention the potential issues over the Hibs structure.

However you also have consistently indicated that Hibs would be a better choice for McInnes.

So what one is it? For the last few months there hasn’t been any “potential” issues in your Hibs postings you have been 100% on the side that this is a bad idea for Hibs.

So with your steadfast opinion that Hibs will be nothing more than a feeder club with Bournemouth do you still think it’s a better option for McInnes? 

[Ric]

Hearts fans trying to work out all the permutations where Kilmarnock will fail.

[VincentGuerin]

Just now, Sortmeout said:

I have read all your posts and you do mention the potential issues over the Hibs structure.

However you also have consistently indicated that Hibs would be a better choice for McInnes.

So what one is it? For the last few months there hasn’t been any “potential” issues in your Hibs postings you have been 100% on the side that this is a bad idea for Hibs.

So with your steadfast opinion that Hibs will be nothing more than a feeder club with Bournemouth do you still think it’s a better option for McInnes? 

I'm not being funny, but if the nuance in the posts is beyond you, I can't really help that.

Let's try one last time. I'll make it dead simple.

1) Hibs is a more attractive job than Killie. He'd be better paid and have a bigger budget, and more money in football the world over correlates with a better chance of success. To deny this is beyond fucking bonkers. Nobody is saying Killie are scum or shite or pointless. It's simple footballing fact. Money is good.

2) Hibs are currently a shambles, and, that being the case, I can see a possibility that he wouldn't want to take the Hibs job, despite it being the better job if all things are equal.

Is this really that fucking hard to understand?

[DrewDon]

Even if he went there and did a good job, I do wonder what the chances are of McInnes achieving a significant amount more with Hibs than he did with Aberdeen (or could with Kilmarnock), to justify the risk of moving from somewhere he is clearly comfortable and has control. 

I think he's a good manager, even if he has certain flaws that might be more exposed if he left Scotland, but I was a little bit surprised that there didn't appear to be more interest in him after he left us and before he joined Kilmarnock. Of course, not everything will be made public, but the only job he spoke about being firmly in contention for was Ipswich, when they eventually hired McKenna instead.

It could be that he is a manager with a style that is viewed as very well fitted to Scottish football but perhaps not that transferable, or perhaps that his body of work with Aberdeen just isn't viewed as favourably outside Scotland.

It wouldn't hugely surprise me if someone young like Tommy Elphick, currently the assistant manager at Bournemouth, ends up getting the job if the Black Knight Group leads the process.

Edited May 14 by DrewDon

[GreenGray]

4 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

He'd get paid more money and have a far better chance at sustained success.

It's an obvious move to take, and if Hibs want him then the only way they won't get him is if McInnes sees that it's a proper shambles behind the scenes. If Hibs ask to speak to him, what McInnes does will be quite instructive.

You are relentless at talking shite, eh? McInnes turned down Rangers ffs.

[Sortmeout]

5 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

I'm not being funny, but if the nuance in the posts is beyond you, I can't really help that.

Let's try one last time. I'll make it dead simple.

1) Hibs is a more attractive job than Killie. He'd be better paid and have a bigger budget, and more money in football the world over correlates with a better chance of success. To deny this is beyond fucking bonkers. Nobody is saying Killie are scum or shite or pointless. It's simple footballing fact. Money is good.

2) Hibs are currently a shambles, and, that being the case, I can see a possibility that he wouldn't want to take the Hibs job, despite it being the better job if all things are equal.

Is this really that fucking hard to understand?

You seem pretty stressed out by this chat today.

So basically you are just sitting on the fence? McInnes might go to Hibs as they are a better prospect than Kilmarnock but might not go because Hibs are a shambles (and in turn a worse prospect than Kilmarnock).

Have I “fucking” understood you correctly now? 

[VincentGuerin]

Just now, GreenGray said:

You are relentless at talking shite, eh? McInnes turned down Rangers ffs.

f**k ME!

I don't mind c***s disagreeing with me, but can you maybe read my posts before doing so?

I. SAID. THAT. EARLIER.

[Darren]

10 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

They bring Deas and Greg Stewart into the starting line up then, I'd imagine.

Killie are absolutely stacked squad wise.

Everyone desperate to talk them down with "ifs and buts" of things going wrong, as if McInnes hasn't built squads to be top 6 regulars before with all the same pitfalls.

There's more chance Hibs get relegated next season then finish above a McInnes-led Kilmarnock IMO.

It's called playing devil's advocate. 

Ifs and buts as to whether Deas and Stewart perform to the standard of Mayo and Armstrong. 

What I do know is Hearts have missed Gordon, Halkett, McKay and Boyce (plus Baningime not really fit for the first half of it) for vast swathes of this season and still cantered to third. That's a solid spine to most Premiership clubs. But more money = more depth.

[VincentGuerin]

Just now, Sortmeout said:

You seem pretty stressed out by this chat today.

So basically you are just sitting on the fence? McInnes might go to Hibs as they are a better prospect than Kilmarnock but might not go because Hibs are a shambles (and in turn a worse prospect than Kilmarnock).

Have I “fucking” understood you correctly now? 

Jesus Christ.

[Sortmeout]

Just now, VincentGuerin said:

Jesus Christ.

So I haven’t understood you correctly? 

[GreenGray]

2 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

f**k ME!

I don't mind c***s disagreeing with me, but can you maybe read my posts before doing so?

I. SAID. THAT. EARLIER.

So it wouldn't exactly be a surprise if he turned down Hibs, would it?

[Sortmeout]

Hibs might win the Champions League in the next 3 years if they spend hundreds of millions of pounds and bring in a great manager.

Or they might not.

If any of the above eventualities come to pass I will be on here declaring my own fantastic football knowledge.

[VincentGuerin]

1 minute ago, GreenGray said:

So it wouldn't exactly be a surprise if he turned down Hibs, would it?

So, are you another one who is along to try to argue with me without realising that you're agreeing with me?

We should introduce a reading comprehension test before people can join this forum.

[Ric]

3 minutes ago, Darren said:

It's called playing devil's advocate.

Usually when playing Devil's Advocate (it's capitalised) you start off by saying...

"Playing Devil's Advocate, then..."

..rather than claiming 7 replies in, when your points are being debunked.

 

[Darren]

2 minutes ago, Ric said:

Usually when playing Devil's Advocate (it's capitalised) you start off by saying...

"Playing Devil's Advocate, then..."

..rather than claiming 7 replies in, when your points are being debunked.

 

I think you'll find it's devil's advocate, as per the Oxford Dictionary. 

Which of my points has been debunked? Just to be clear, that would mean demonstrably false in this context.

[Richey Edwards]

Bobby Davro

[Ric]

8 minutes ago, Darren said:

I think you'll find it's devil's advocate, as per the Oxford Dictionary. 

Which of my points has been debunked? Just to be clear, that would mean demonstrably false in this context.

That's two points, for the first, if there were several devils, then yes it would be lower case but as the phrase is specifically about the actual Devil within Christianity then it's capitalised.  Same for the Oxford dictionary entry for god, it is also lower case, but if you were referring to the monotheistic God it would be capitalised. Away from religion, the Moon is capitalised because we are discussing a specific object, if however you discussed the moons of, say, Jupiter it would be lower case.

As for the second, my apologies, I actually thought your comment was from Vincent who has been digging quite the hole here. Hence why I thought it was odd they were introducing that literary device at this point.

Edited May 14 by Ric

[pozbaird]