The January Transfer Window Rumours and Deals Thread

[Rousseau 9,351]

Without a permanent manager January is surely going to pass us by? By all means extend the contracts of promising young players but beyond that can we really approach players at other clubs, indeed can we even offer new contracts to out of contract players at Rangers like Wilson? McArthur is an attractive signing, I'd consider approaching him, offering our highest salary and appointing him captain, but he's not going to sign without knowing who the manager is. Indeed would Moult, or Walker either? What happens if we bring in a manager who just doesn't fancy them? It's another consequence of our inability to appoint a manager.

 

I'm far from convinced a Director of Football signing players without a manager is going to end well.

 

McArthur? Really? He's a good wee player, but he's not a 'main' player; he's a supporting player. You can't build a team around him.

 

I think the point of a DoF is to take the transfers away from the regular managerial changes, so we have players that will be suited to any manager that comes in, which the DoF should be appointing. (Athough, if DM was the choice, I'm not sure they've thought this part through!) There may not be specific targets without a manger, but there should be player profiles, and if such a player was available, then I hope the DoF goes forward. The DoF structure works in so many instances, but our unfamiliarity with it will lead to some teething problems.

[buster. 4,808]

McArthur? Really? He's a good wee player, but he's not a 'main' player; he's a supporting player. You can't build a team around him.

 

I think the point of a DoF is to take the transfers away from the regular managerial changes, so we have players that will be suited to any manager that comes in, which the DoF should be appointing. (Athough, if DM was the choice, I'm not sure they've thought this part through!) There may not be specific targets without a manger, but there should be player profiles, and if such a player was available, then I hope the DoF goes forward. The DoF structure works in so many instances, but our unfamiliarity with it will lead to some teething problems.

 

A lot will depend on the competence levels of those involved.

 

For it to work well, you need the whole process to work from scouting, identification, signing, coaching, management.

 

eg. until Rodgers came in at celtic, several of their signings looked poor.

ie. they have a strategy/structure in place that wasn't working as it should because of a managerial appt. (Delia).

[Walterbear 557]

McArthur? Really? He's a good wee player, but he's not a 'main' player; he's a supporting player. You can't build a team around him.

 

I think the point of a DoF is to take the transfers away from the regular managerial changes, so we have players that will be suited to any manager that comes in, which the DoF should be appointing. (Athough, if DM was the choice, I'm not sure they've thought this part through!) There may not be specific targets without a manger, but there should be player profiles, and if such a player was available, then I hope the DoF goes forward. The DoF structure works in so many instances, but our unfamiliarity with it will lead to some teething problems.

 

Mark Allen has already said priority will be to invest in younger players who will have a return. Given the limited funds that makes sense. I would hope that bringing in a DoF who is largely unknown to us would at least lead to some fresh thinking in recruitment and perhaps a couple of gems are uncovered rather than him suggesting names and signings that even the Daily Record can come up with.

 

I’m not sure adding MacArthur would be the right thing to do even if his wages do drop. We have Dorrans as our midfield oldie with an experienced head and we have the makings of a solid midfield with a Jack and even McRorie making a midfield position his own.

 

Where we are vulnerable in terms of immediate fix is left side defence, goal scorer and creative midfielder / number 10.

[pete 2,499]

McArthur? Really? He's a good wee player, but he's not a 'main' player; he's a supporting player. You can't build a team around him.

 

I think the point of a DoF is to take the transfers away from the regular managerial changes, so we have players that will be suited to any manager that comes in, which the DoF should be appointing. (Athough, if DM was the choice, I'm not sure they've thought this part through!) There may not be specific targets without a manger, but there should be player profiles, and if such a player was available, then I hope the DoF goes forward. The DoF structure works in so many instances, but our unfamiliarity with it will lead to some teething problems.

 

I disagree totally that a DOF should have the say on players coming in. He should be identifying them and putting them before the manager and then the manager has the final say on whether the player is contracted or not. What is the point in bringing a new manager in if you are going to tie his hands playing the same way with the same players. If the manager wants certain players then it is up to the DOF to do the work to find out if they are available and all the other contract work. The manager is responsible for the team so also responsible who plays in it. It is up to the DOF to make sure he has a manager that works in the vision of the club and if they have a good relationship then many decisions will be done together.

[JohnMc 2,463]

McArthur? Really? He's a good wee player, but he's not a 'main' player; he's a supporting player. You can't build a team around him.

 

I think the point of a DoF is to take the transfers away from the regular managerial changes, so we have players that will be suited to any manager that comes in, which the DoF should be appointing. (Athough, if DM was the choice, I'm not sure they've thought this part through!) There may not be specific targets without a manger, but there should be player profiles, and if such a player was available, then I hope the DoF goes forward. The DoF structure works in so many instances, but our unfamiliarity with it will lead to some teething problems.

 

I don't think McArthur is the type of player to build a team around either, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be signed and made captain. You wouldn't build a team around Lee Wallace either. But he's a step up from most at the club just now, he's only 30 so he's got four or five years ahead of him at SPFL level, he's experienced and he's a better midfielder than almost anyone else in the league.

 

I remain unconvinced by the Director of Football position but it'll be interesting to see what happens in January. We're clearly lacking in the wide areas and whoever becomes manager needs to address that. So if we sign any wide players in Jan we'll know it's the DoF who is pulling the strings on that. It also means we're not looking for a 'manager' but for a coach. McInnes is most definitely a manager.

[Rousseau 9,351]

I disagree totally that a DOF should have the say on players coming in. He should be identifying them and putting them before the manager and then the manager has the final say on whether the player is contracted or not. What is the point in bringing a new manager in if you are going to tie his hands playing the same way with the same players. If the manager wants certain players then it is up to the DOF to do the work to find out if they are available and all the other contract work. The manager is responsible for the team so also responsible who plays in it. It is up to the DOF to make sure he has a manager that works in the vision of the club and if they have a good relationship then many decisions will be done together.

 

I agree -- that's why I said maybe "not [...] specific targets [or players]", merely player profiles that may be available on the cheap or free etc.

[Rousseau 9,351]

I don't think McArthur is the type of player to build a team around either, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be signed and made captain. You wouldn't build a team around Lee Wallace either. But he's a step up from most at the club just now, he's only 30 so he's got four or five years ahead of him at SPFL level, he's experienced and he's a better midfielder than almost anyone else in the league.

 

I remain unconvinced by the Director of Football position but it'll be interesting to see what happens in January. We're clearly lacking in the wide areas and whoever becomes manager needs to address that. So if we sign any wide players in Jan we'll know it's the DoF who is pulling the strings on that. It also means we're not looking for a 'manager' but for a coach. McInnes is most definitely a manager.

 

Fair enough. Captain implies main role, whereas I'm not sure he's that sort of player. He'd be a good addition, but I'm not sure I'd burst the bank to get him.

 

McInnes doesn't quite fit for me either -- and that's forgetting the fact I think he's crap!

[Bluedell 5,329]

Do we need McArthur when we've already got Jack as the defensive midfielder?

[trublusince1982 243]

Why should the club show more concern towards a managers wants than what is best for the club? Managers selecting signings on their own is antiquated and quiet frankly bad for clubs. Manager whims should not be the main directive of any club. No one person should shoulder the responsibility of player recruitment or your at the whim of that person. Teams with philosophy set by club with manager input is the very best approach just ask Southampton.

[Waltersgotstyle 297]

Do we need McArthur when we've already got Jack as the defensive midfielder?

 

I would say in a 4-2-3-1, McArthur would be a great addition.