Shadwell Dog Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 1 minute ago, BottiBiabi said: Dylan Bikey released by hearts. Scored goals for fun in league 2 and still relatively young. He'd be a good signing at this level Thats a strange one. They only just signed him a few months back. You wonder what the point was in that. Mind you with that clown Cathro in charge its no surprise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gav-ffc Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 If he signs a professional contract I'm sure an old club is due a bit of compo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudu Dahan pal Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 hibs offered him a professional contract and he decided to join hearts on amateur terms. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gav-ffc Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 Dylan Bikey rejected Hibs’ advances to sign amateur terms with Hearts. Consequently, he is relying on money sent from family in France to survive. He wouldn’t have it any other way.The 22-year-old forward is effectively on a four-month trial at Tynecastle hoping to earn a professional deal by the summer. Hearts officials managed to circumvent paying more than £40,000 compensation to his former club, FC Dieppe, by signing him as an amateur player from Stirling Albion last month. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelocalcat Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 22 minutes ago, gav-ffc said: Dylan Bikey rejected Hibs’ advances to sign amateur terms with Hearts. Consequently, he is relying on money sent from family in France to survive. He wouldn’t have it any other way. The 22-year-old forward is effectively on a four-month trial at Tynecastle hoping to earn a professional deal by the summer. Hearts officials managed to circumvent paying more than £40,000 compensation to his former club, FC Dieppe, by signing him as an amateur player from Stirling Albion last month. 100% paying him on the sly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDust Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 46 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said: God this is hard work.Baird isn't good enough to start for us and neither is McHugh surely you can understand that? As Ive already said if we start with Baird up front we wont win anything this year as we saw when he was [partnered with Austin on Friday night. If your happy to have him as your starting striker then on you go but to win this league we need to sign a striker that will guarantee us 15-20 goals a season. If Baird is getting kept on as a backup then to me its a waste of a wage as he is not suited to coming on off the bench and we already have Miller, O'Hara and Shepherd as backup strikers. There is absolutely no reason to sign Baird, a player who needs to play every week, to sit on the bench. That's why I'd rather have McHugh if we have to have either as a sub because he has a better history of coming off the bench and scoring goals even if he was poor on Friday. Ideally though both would be away. The hard work part is, your point of signing McHugh just for the bench because he is younger. A statement like that, you can never slag of Houston's signings when you are happy to sign a player that has done hee haw in 2 seasons. I think you have joined the misty eyed late goal Hibs McHugh club which was relived this season against St Mirren for the only point he gained for us and one good performance v Raith away. I dont know why we dont offer him a 10yr contract on that performance, especially as he is younger Im ok with Baird signing on again, I wouldnt have minded if he went either but there is a chance we might get his first season goals next season. Austin was poor on Friday also and was lucky it wasnt him that was subbed, McHugh though was overly terrible but I suppose he is younger. Signing McHugh on again for me would be worse than signing Shepperd on a 2yr deal and that is saying something, mind you he is younger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PipoIsABairn Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, MrDust said: The hard work part is, your point of signing McHugh just for the bench because he is younger. A statement like that, you can never slag of Houston's signings when you are happy to sign a player that has done hee haw in 2 seasons. I think you have joined the misty eyed late goal Hibs McHugh club which was relived this season against St Mirren for the only point he gained for us and one good performance v Raith away. I dont know why we dont offer him a 10yr contract on that performance, especially as he is younger Im ok with Baird signing on again, I wouldnt have minded if he went either but there is a chance we might get his first season goals next season. Austin was poor on Friday also and was lucky it wasnt him that was subbed, McHugh though was overly terrible but I suppose he is younger. Signing McHugh on again for me would be worse than signing Shepperd on a 2yr deal and that is saying something, mind you he is younger I like the look of McHugh when he plays, in terms of all round play, but sadly I can't defend his stats as they are even worse than Baird, a goal every 461 minutes this season. I, like many, have great memories from last season that are, largely, down to his late show heroics. I think my point here is that neither are really at the level required. Austin is, without a doubt at this point, our best striker. I also think he's the only striker on our books capable of playing up top on his own which gives us more options to play attacking mids just behind him if need be. That being said, he was indeed running on fumes on Friday and probably should have been subbed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bainsfordbairn Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Marshmallo said: Just put an extra outfield player on the bench. Youth results don't matter. If we are mandated to put one there then stick a 13 year old on the bench. Sorry Marsh, but that's the mindset of a fan, not the club, and not those who run youth football. In a years time we plan to be one of the new SFA Elite Academies. Telling them we're going to play outfield players in goal, or take a child out of school every Tuesday we play an away game, is hardly going to go down well. The money you would save by not having a reserve youth goalie wouldn't come near to paying for a first team player, so what would be the point of doing it? Edited May 23, 2017 by Bainsfordbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JinkyBairn Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 Can we just all agree that Bairdy and McHugh are both shite so we can move on plz x 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaggerG Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 37 minutes ago, MrDust said: The hard work part is, your point of signing McHugh just for the bench because he is younger. A statement like that, you can never slag of Houston's signings when you are happy to sign a player that has done hee haw in 2 seasons. I think you have joined the misty eyed late goal Hibs McHugh club which was relived this season against St Mirren for the only point he gained for us and one good performance v Raith away. I dont know why we dont offer him a 10yr contract on that performance, especially as he is younger Im ok with Baird signing on again, I wouldnt have minded if he went either but there is a chance we might get his first season goals next season. Austin was poor on Friday also and was lucky it wasnt him that was subbed, McHugh though was overly terrible but I suppose he is younger. Signing McHugh on again for me would be worse than signing Shepperd on a 2yr deal and that is saying something, mind you he is younger I think you're well aware of what the guy is on about but think your dislike of McHugh and defence of Baird is maybe clouding your judgement a wee bit? He's clearly stated that he would have punted both (so would I) but that he'd keep McHugh ahead of Baird as a back-up if forced to pick one. He wouldn't plan to start him but would prefer him if he had to have him on the bench. I don't think we can dispute that McHugh's best performances have been when he's come on, especially later in games. Personally I would have ditched both along with Kerr and maybe even Taiwo as I feel we need to freshen things up big time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL-FFC Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 Its fine freshening things up but we have finished runners up 2 seasons in a row so you have to look at it we have a good nucleus there to do whats required but you change it too much then you run the risk of the team having to gel again or not gelling and trying to find out what combination works again where the situation at the moment other than Leahy we have released bit part players. The upshot is do you run the risk of stepping back 2 or 3 seasons and try to rebuild a full new team in the hope they gel and have to experiment with what you have or release bit part players and keep with a team thats finished 2nd 2 seasons in a row and do minimal changes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie Perrin Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 Its fine freshening things up but we have finished runners up 2 seasons in a row so you have to look at it we have a good nucleus there to do whats required but you change it too much then you run the risk of the team having to gel again or not gelling and trying to find out what combination works again where the situation at the moment other than Leahy we have released bit part players. The upshot is do you run the risk of stepping back 2 or 3 seasons and try to rebuild a full new team in the hope they gel and have to experiment with what you have or release bit part players and keep with a team thats finished 2nd 2 seasons in a row and do minimal changes. More than minimal changes required if we are going to mount a serious challenge. Should be looking to bring in around 4 first team starters imo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL-FFC Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 18 minutes ago, Reggie Perrin said: More than minimal changes required if we are going to mount a serious challenge. Should be looking to bring in around 4 first team starters imo. Going by One F most want the whole team sacked including Houston though, We still dont know whos staying and going out the rest of the team. As i mentioned i think next seasons main contenders will be St Mirren, Dundee Utd arent up yet and if they do slip up against Accies then thats another team with a bigger budget than us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crawford Baptie Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 Bairds brother on twitter defending his brother which is fair enough. I'd keep Baird as I wouldn't want him to play against us next season as he's always good for a goal against us before joining.Baird, Austin, O'Hara and one other will be fine for the championship with of course Big sexy on the bench. What's his brothers name on twitter? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajwffc Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 Going by One F most want the whole team sacked including Houston though, We still dont know whos staying and going out the rest of the team. Including players that left the club in January 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadwell Dog Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, ShaggerG said: I think you're well aware of what the guy is on about but think your dislike of McHugh and defence of Baird is maybe clouding your judgement a wee bit? He's clearly stated that he would have punted both (so would I) but that he'd keep McHugh ahead of Baird as a back-up if forced to pick one. He wouldn't plan to start him but would prefer him if he had to have him on the bench. I don't think we can dispute that McHugh's best performances have been when he's come on, especially later in games. Personally I would have ditched both along with Kerr and maybe even Taiwo as I feel we need to freshen things up big time. Thank you. Some sense at last. At the moment I would have: Thomson in goal Gallagher, grant, Muirhead, new right back Hippo, Craigen, new centre mid, mckee/new right mid. Austin, new striker That would be the basis of my starting 11 for next season and presumes that sibbald will be away. Edited May 23, 2017 by Shadwell Dog 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senor Bairn Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 MrDust has a big rager for wee John Baird 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demented Zebra Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 19 hours ago, Trump said: Footballers aren't role models. You do have a point there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDust Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 2 hours ago, ShaggerG said: I think you're well aware of what the guy is on about but think your dislike of McHugh and defence of Baird is maybe clouding your judgement a wee bit? He's clearly stated that he would have punted both (so would I) but that he'd keep McHugh ahead of Baird as a back-up if forced to pick one. He wouldn't plan to start him but would prefer him if he had to have him on the bench. I don't think we can dispute that McHugh's best performances have been when he's come on, especially later in games. Personally I would have ditched both along with Kerr and maybe even Taiwo as I feel we need to freshen things up big time. I stated I wouldn't have minded if we got rid of both but if it comes down to keeping one, it would be Baird for me. A no brainer, we have one striker who has done nothing in two seasons and one who has had one good season. So why you would choose one because he is younger and not done anything in his two year spell to me is simply madness, nevermind signing a player for the bench at the age of 25 After calling Houstie down for poor signings, he wants to re-sign one of the poor signings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadwell Dog Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, MrDust said: I stated I wouldn't have minded if we got rid of both but if it comes down to keeping one, it would be Baird for me. A no brainer, we have one striker who has done nothing in two seasons and one who has had one good season. So why you would choose one because he is younger and not done anything in his two year spell to me is simply madness, nevermind signing a player for the bench at the age of 25 After calling Houstie down for poor signings, he wants to re-sign one of the poor signings. Why would u keep Baird to sit on the bench? At 31 he needs to play every week but isn't good enough to do that for us. He doesn't make an impact off the bench so is no use as a sub. We're basically keeping him due to some ludicrous clause in his contract and for no other reason. The only way he may be of use is if one of our starters gets a long term injury and that's it. Felt McKee was excellent at right mid in the two games against du so would give him a chance there if fit. Edited May 23, 2017 by Shadwell Dog 0 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.