The January Transfer Window Rumours and Deals Thread

[buster. 4,808]

8 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

This conclusion that it's a "no brainer" is based on too many assumptions, for me. 

 

I think the apparent assumptions that we'll be able to do deals for the likes of Docherty and others are far from watertight.

 

I'd welcome a new approach for fresher faces but at this point in time, only if we can actually go and get it done. If not, then Naismith IMO becomes a 'no-brainer' (if cost is as reported).

[ian1964 10,411]

1 minute ago, Rousseau said:

 

He could be another wage, divide the support, dressing room, while being sh*te. 

 

I'll trust the management's decision; they'll have more information than any of us.

Absolutely!, they will have far more info than us and that is why no matter what players we post about it has no bearing on who signs!, but we are entitled to opinions and that is where it ends!.

[Rousseau 9,369]

2 minutes ago, ian1964 said:

Absolutely!, they will have far more info than us and that is why no matter what players we post about it has no bearing on who signs!, but we are entitled to opinions and that is where it ends!.

 

Yes, fair enough. 

 

If all the assumptions are correct, then he would be a very good signing. I'm just sceptical. 

[Rousseau 9,369]

9 minutes ago, buster. said:

 

I think the apparent assumptions that we'll be able to do deals for the likes of Docherty and others are far from watertight.

 

I'd welcome a new approach for fresher faces but at this point in time, only if we can actually go and get it done. If not, then Naismith IMO becomes a 'no-brainer' (if cost is as reported).

 

They're not connected, though. There are gambles involved in every name we've been linked with, mainly around whether they can step up. 

 

Like I said above, if all assumptions are correct then they're very good signings. I'm sceptical, and prefer to air on the side of caution. One bad game and we're slating them again!

 

My main issue is we keep calling the Naismith one a "no-brainer", when I think there are still too many assumptions and variables involved. As Craig said elsewhere: we're too keen on that silver bullet.

[buster. 4,808]

Just now, Rousseau said:

 

They're not connected, though. There are gambles involved in every name we've been linked with, mainly around whether they can step up. 

 

Like I said above, if all assumptions are correct then they're very good signings. I'm sceptical, and prefer to air on the side of caution. One bad game and we're slating them again!

 

IMO they are connected.

 

The club/football operation have to decide on who they want and they'll consider both Naismith and the others. Now the club or/and football operation may discount Naismith quickly, which would be fine if they had other names and could deliver them.

 

The issue of finance presently available has to be considered when considering the above.

 

------

 

I'd welcome a fresh approach after too many expensive auld yins who haven't delivered (sometimes predictably).....but this particular auld yin wouldn't be expensive and IMO is actually more likely to deliver.

[Frankie 8,150]

I think (just as we seen last August), if we wanted to sign Naismith, he'd be here by now.

[Rousseau 9,369]

18 minutes ago, buster. said:

 

IMO they are connected.

 

The club/football operation have to decide on who they want and they'll consider both Naismith and the others. Now the club or/and football operation may discount Naismith quickly, which would be fine if they had other names and could deliver them.

 

The issue of finance presently available has to be considered when considering the above.

 

------

 

I'd welcome a fresh approach after too many expensive auld yins who haven't delivered (sometimes predictably).....but this particular auld yin wouldn't be expensive and IMO is actually more likely to deliver.

 

I'm complaining about the fans conclusions, not our scouting approach. We're too quick to make conclusions, when it's all based on rumour -- which is all we can do, to be fair, but I prefer to keep a more balanced view.

 

If they miss out on other options, I would hope they don't just go for Naismith for the sake of it! That's a bad route to go down! 

 

He "wouldn't be expensive and IMO is actually more likely to deliver" is pure assumption. I can only base my opinion on facts, and the only fact I am certain about is that he's not the player he was. I really couldn't say if he'd be good enough. If Hearts are going for him, perhaps not! Moreover, all the baggage that come with him (dividing support etc.) is quite a mark against the signing.

[buster. 4,808]

1 minute ago, Rousseau said:

 

I'm complaining about the fans conclusions, not our scouting approach. We're too quick to make conclusions, when it's all based on rumour -- which is all we can do, to be fair, but I prefer to keep a more balanced view.

 

If they miss out on other options, I would hope they don't just go for Naismith for the sake of it! That's a bad route to go down! 

 

He "wouldn't be expensive and IMO is actually more likely to deliver" is pure assumption. I can only base my opinion on facts, and the only fact I am certain about is that he's not the player he was. I really couldn't say if he'd be good enough. If Hearts are going for him, perhaps not! Moreover, all the baggage that come with him (dividing support etc.) is quite a mark against the signing.

 

Might as well complain about rain 

 

Happy to wait and see what happens although I kind of agree with Frankie, in that if we had wanted him, it'd probably have been done by now. The assumption there is that the club/football operation are fairly clear about what they want and can do.

[Rousseau 9,369]

9 minutes ago, buster. said:

 

Might as well complain about rain 

 

Happy to wait and see what happens although I kind of agree with Frankie, in that if we had wanted him, it'd probably have been done by now. The assumption there is that the club/football operation are fairly clear about what they want and can do.

 

Very true. It's just the jumping to conclusions based on nothing concrete in this case. I suppose that's par for the course!

 

I believe you may be right.  

[craig 5,195]

3 hours ago, stewarty said:

I fear that naisy playing for another Scottish team could well come back to haunt us.

 

Yes he might not have quite the same level of bite he had 5 years ago, but at 31 there's no doubt in my mind that with a run of games under his belt and some confidence flowing, he will be a very effective player at SPFL level.

 

If he's prepared to play for free effectively, it really is in the no-brainer category in my opinion.

Naismith would improve our starting XI without a shadow of doubt.  He also has the desire that many players lack and is a winner.  If we were getting him playing for next to nothing then why wouldn't we ?  Are we forgetting that our squad isn't exactly deep ?  To get someone of Naismith's ability for zero transfer fee, and virtually no wages, is a no-brainer.

 

What would he be costing us ?  Nothing.  And if he proves his fitness then we would be getting a quality player for free - an absolute steal.

 

Naismith or Herrera..... Naismith blows Herrera away every day of the week.  Naismith would enhance our squad AND our team and for peanuts - given our financial situation one would think it would be a simple decision... at least in my mind.