Canadaready 9,437 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I am interested. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueben_d 40 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 i dont have that kind of money Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy 68 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delparlane 5,758 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Yes. I think he would prove to be worth it in the long run, and the extra dosh spent would keep him out of enemy hands. Probably a moot point by now, though. <_< Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUEDIGNITY 33,746 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Yes of course ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_glasgow 2 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 yes for these reasonyoung with bags of potenialnot bad if arsenal were sniffing about at you19 goals last season for a poor teampossibilty of a sell on to a bigger teamknows how to play with boydbags of pace and skillscant thnk of any elsea would buy him and that would be it this season Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wronglypenalised 14 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 answered no, young player, a lot still to prove to a lot of people (europe, need to win every game, media exposure etc), we were right to offer a fee based on appearances etc, plus as another poster said, a few months ago it looked like a bid of 1 mill would have secured him, we went back in with improved levels of bids and lo and behold the goalposts were shifted, we have to draw the line somewhere guys! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briton 394 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 If Whitaker and Thomson are worth £2 million then so is he. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Euronymous Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 £1.5M Max! Therefore my answer is no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginnes90 0 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I would of spend £2 million on Naismith. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 9 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 £1.5M Max! Therefore my answer is no.w0rd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmanhaggis 0 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 £2m is a bargain! Walter sign him up! Please! I couldn't bear to see him suffer the fate of becoming a Celtic benchwarmer when he should be out there like Riordan! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 13,319 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Not normally - no.But I would rather pay £2 miilion for Naismith than 1.5 - 1.8 million for Cousins. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianGer 1 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 answered no, young player, a lot still to prove to a lot of people (europe, need to win every game, media exposure etc), we were right to offer a fee based on appearances etc, plus as another poster said, a few months ago it looked like a bid of 1 mill would have secured him, we went back in with improved levels of bids and lo and behold the goalposts were shifted, we have to draw the line somewhere guys!Agreed. The structure of our bids meant Killie would have had good value while we were protected if he flopped. What I am sore about is that we kept going back and back, letting Killie run us down in the press and all of that without the Chairman once making a comment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossger 0 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 yes, i think he's defo worth that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wronglypenalised 14 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 answered no, young player, a lot still to prove to a lot of people (europe, need to win every game, media exposure etc), we were right to offer a fee based on appearances etc, plus as another poster said, a few months ago it looked like a bid of 1 mill would have secured him, we went back in with improved levels of bids and lo and behold the goalposts were shifted, we have to draw the line somewhere guys!Agreed. The structure of our bids meant Killie would have had good value while we were protected if he flopped. What I am sore about is that we kept going back and back, letting Killie run us down in the press and all of that without the Chairman once making a comment.thanks for concurring CR, reports from killie camp appear to say that whatever money they received would be used to service their debt, what difference would say 1mill the now, followed by another 5-600k spread over the next year make, not as if they would be looking to act in the market for a replacement, if they were scared he wouldn't make the grade then it says more about their valuation of him than anything else imo!the press coverage has been its usual mediocre level, if there were other teams actively looking at the situation then in my eyes the piranha brigade would be calling in a lot of favours from their 'sources close to the club' to uncover their identities, appears like BS from their chairman keeping schtum about them while being overly open about our interest as well as details of bids :willy: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
followfollow21 0 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Honestly, conscidering his potential, and age....YES....I would have even gone as high as 2.2-Million for him! It will pay off in spades in a few years!it mat still happen....and in my humble opinion, IT STILL WILL!!He won't go to the Soapdodgers! He'll stay in Killie before that happens! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
excoriate 0 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Nah. We're working in the lower end of the transfer market.As Rangers we shouldn't be buying potential, we should be breeding it in our youth teams.We should be buying ability, and for £2m I'd be expecting a raid on weaker Eastern European and South American markets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I think the one advantage you have with a Scott Brown is that he has made a mark with the international team, even playing against the world champions in Rome. Unfortunately we just don't know if Naismith can hack it in the big time, so I would reluctantly have to say no, although if it was 2 million quid after say 200 appearances I would reconsider. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
excoriate 0 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 than a dodgy Eastern European (Mladenovic, etc) who more than likely won't settle and would have to be paid off.Aye, signing an eastern european midfielder who can't run was always going to be a disaster in a kick and rush league! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saudibear 0 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 The market is so inflated these days it is difficult to put a figure on a player but at his age i would have thought he was a better risk at 2 million than Cousins at 1.5. Simply on sell on value. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibleedblue 0 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Even if he's not worth £2m, it's clear that Killie think he is and won't accept anything less so it's either pay it, or risk losing him to celtic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUE CYCLOPS 26 Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 I have not seen enough of Naismith to form an opinion on whether he,s worth 2m or not. However,the fact that he has been YPOY for 2 years running AND NONE OF THE TOP CLUBS IN EPL show any sign of wanting to sign him suggest he is nothing more than a good SPL player.I don,t want to prejudge the guy but, are we not in danger of talking him up as an absolute must have.Without Naismith we will win nothing. Without Naismith we will continue to be 2nd. rate. If we don,t sign Naismith we will be in crisis. Is he really worth all the hype we are showering on him?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Newells Sexist Army 2 Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 I have not seen enough of Naismith to form an opinion on whether he,s worth 2m or not. However,the fact that he has been YPOY for 2 years running AND NONE OF THE TOP CLUBS IN EPL show any sign of wanting to sign him suggest he is nothing more than a good SPL player.I don,t want to prejudge the guy but, are we not in danger of talking him up as an absolute must have.Without Naismith we will win nothing. Without Naismith we will continue to be 2nd. rate. If we don,t sign Naismith we will be in crisis. Is he really worth all the hype we are showering on him??Alot of English people are fucking idiots when it comes to non-English football though. Look at the furore in the papers down there when Sunderland were even thinking of paying 8 or 9 million for Gordon, cause Robinson was bought for less than 2 million and even Cech was only 7 million. So many headlines along the lines of "All Scottish goalkeepers are shit, we all know it" or "Keano's really mad this time", fact is they just never rate Scottish players and never will. Even though people who actually watch football know Gordon's one of the best keepers in Britain, maybe not THE best but certainly up there and its hardly inflated since Liverpool paid nearly 10 million for the permanent benchwarmer that is Chris Kirkland.In response to the orignal question, yes i'd pay 2 million for Naismith, especially if we paid that for Whittaker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricksen_da_best 2,034 Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 On the 26th July, it was widely reported that Naismith had handed in an official transfer request. His agent Andrew McCormick hit out at Kilmarnock for not allowing Steven to join his "boyhood heroes", Rangers, and claimed that the Ibrox club would be the only transfer he would consider, however on 1 August 2007, reports surfaced on the BBC suggesting Kilmarnock were close to accepting a bid of around £2m from Rangers' arch rivals Celtic with Naismith agreeing terms and being unvieled as Celtic's new number 19 on 2nd August 2007 and set to make his debut against kilmarnock this sunday Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts