The January Transfer Window Rumours and Deals Thread

[craig 5,195]

24 minutes 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.

I think you are being overly simplistic here.  Just because Hearts want him doesn't mean that he isn't good enough for us.

 

It's kind of like, say, Real Madrid saying, If Rangers are going for Messi then he perhaps isn't good enough for Real Madrid.  It is, in fact, a silly way of looking at it.  Every single club wants the best players they can get.  Hearts wanting Naismith is, again, a no-brainer in my opinion, because of the quality he could bring them.  He would definitely improve their team.  Just because they want him doesn't mean he isn't good enough for us.

 

To be honest, I can't even understand your thinking on that remark Rousseau

[Rousseau 9,369]

1 minute ago, craig said:

I think you are being overly simplistic here.  Just because Hearts want him doesn't mean that he isn't good enough for us.

 

It's kind of like, say, Real Madrid saying, If Rangers are going for Messi then he perhaps isn't good enough for Real Madrid.  It is, in fact, a silly way of looking at it.  Every single club wants the best players they can get.  Hearts wanting Naismith is, again, a no-brainer in my opinion, because of the quality he could bring them.  He would definitely improve their team.  Just because they want him doesn't mean he isn't good enough for us.

 

To be honest, I can't even understand your thinking on that remark Rousseau

 

Just that if we're in competition with Hearts for him, there's only one choice -- I would hope! And, like Frankie said, if we really wanted him, he'd be here. The fact that Hearts look to be in pole position suggests he isn't an option for us. 

 

My wording was messy. 

[stewarty 1,876]

1 hour ago, buster. said:

 

Good point re. loan restrictions.

 

I'd forgotten Dalcio but would think (or rather hope) that we might be able to somehow cancel his loan. I would also hope it isn't costing that much in relative terms.

 

You would certainly think they were trying to move him on.  And based on his run out last night, the boy is never going to play for us in any meaningful sense.

 

So from the point of view, freeing up the loan spot to bring in Naismith is a no-brainer from where I'm sitting.  

[JohnMc 2,468]

44 minutes ago, Frankie said:

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

Under difference circumstances I'd have agreed with you but having watched the management of our club procrastinate, dither and blunder over the last 12 months I'm not sure you're correct about that. 

 

I do think there's no desire to sign him though, rightly or wrongly. I think it would have leaked if we were interested or pursuing him. 

[JohnMc 2,468]

1 hour ago, Rousseau said:

 

Maybe he's just not good enough anymore, or it's perhaps a gamble considering his age and injury problems? The management team will know more than any of us.

 

Whatever they decide to do, I'll trust their decision. 

 

He could well be a decent option for us, but it could also be the opposite. 

You have way more faith in the decision makers at Rangers than I do. Nothing I've witnessed recently has given me any reason to think they've the first idea what they're doing. 

[Rousseau 9,369]

1 minute ago, JohnMc said:

You have way more faith in the decision makers at Rangers than I do. Nothing I've witnessed recently has given me any reason to think they've the first idea what they're doing. 

Perhaps. We can't influence it either way, and I can opine until my fingers bleed. In this case I really don't know; and I can't see how so many can be so sure he's a 'no-brainer'; there are too many assumptions. However, as buster. said, I may as well complain about the rain. 

[craig 5,195]

5 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Perhaps. We can't influence it either way, and I can opine until my fingers bleed. In this case I really don't know; and I can't see how so many can be so sure he's a 'no-brainer'; there are too many assumptions. However, as buster. said, I may as well complain about the rain. 

The major reason people are suggesting it is a no-brainer is financially.  That is based on the reports that Naismith would come back, initially at least, without taking a wage.  That is where the no-brainer comes from.

 

Naismith wasn't a disruptive influence in the dressing room first time round so I fail to see the concern there should he come back.  The only real concern I see is from our supporters, many of whom won't forgive him for that press conference. 

[stewarty 1,876]

The rumour is that the Board are keen to bring him back, but Murty and Allen are not.   Similarly, Pedro was not.   

 

The interesting aspect will be whether the Board decide that they wish to impose a signing upon Murty/Allen.  

[craig 5,195]

Just now, stewarty said:

The rumour is that the Board are keen to bring him back, but Murty and Allen are not.   Similarly, Pedro was not.   

 

The interesting aspect will be whether the Board decide that they wish to impose a signing upon Murty/Allen.  

Much as though I would like to see Naismith back at Ibrox.... I think it would be a terrible thing for the Board to go over the heads of Murty & Allen.  The Board are there to run the Club administratively.  Murty & Allen are there to run the footballing operation.  Would be a very poor decision for the Board to get involved in the one aspect of the club they haven't any experience of.

[Rousseau 9,369]

Just now, stewarty said:

The rumour is that the Board are keen to bring him back, but Murty and Allen are not.   Similarly, Pedro was not.   

 

The interesting aspect will be whether the Board decide that they wish to impose a signing upon Murty/Allen.  

If that's the case it's a 'no-brainer' that this deal should not happen?

 

It's basically owners picking the team. If the football department don't fancy him, then that should be the end of it.