New striker needed

[MacBoyd 5,506]

If we miraculously are closer to celtic at the winter break, you'd maybe do it right enough...

[Colin Traive 22,924]

7 hours ago, The Specky Forum Organiser said:

I think you're looking at £3m very max for Shankland, maybe something to be done there involving Lowry and I think he's worth it.

If we gave them £1.5m plus extended loans for Lowry and King, that’s a brilliant deal for them.

[BlueSuedeSambas 54,060]

2 hours ago, Colin Traive said:

If we gave them £1.5m plus extended loans for Lowry and King, that’s a brilliant deal for them.

No it’s not. They wouldn’t entertain that for a second IMO.

[Cooperson 849]

15 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

No it’s not. They wouldn’t entertain that for a second IMO.

Someone said the other day on one pod cast, give them back Soutar and they can keep Lowry aswell maybe?

Don't want Shankland myself tbf

[STEPPS BOY 74,314]

2 hours ago, Colin Traive said:

If we gave them £1.5m plus extended loans for Lowry and King, that’s a brilliant deal for them.

 

[Colin Traive 22,924]

24 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

No it’s not. They wouldn’t entertain that for a second IMO.

Lowry and King are better than what they have or what they could afford and they’d be trebling what they spent on Shankland.

Yeah, really poor deal 

[BlueSuedeSambas 54,060]

9 minutes ago, Colin Traive said:

Lowry and King are better than what they have or what they could afford and they’d be trebling what they spent on Shankland.

Yeah, really poor deal 

What they paid for him is irrelevant. He’s worth more than 1.5 million, both in the market and to Hearts on the park.

If some club came for Butland and offered us about half of his true market value and a couple of young players who can’t get near the first team on loan then everybody would rightly be pissing themselves laughing, so why would it be appealing to another club? 

[285miles 507]

There’ll be a Rangers premium to pay on top of the valuation as well

[Colin Traive 22,924]

22 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

What they paid for him is irrelevant. He’s worth more than 1.5 million, both in the market and to Hearts on the park.

If some club came for Butland and offered us about half of his true market value and a couple of young players who can’t get near the first team on loan then everybody would rightly be pissing themselves laughing, so why would it be appealing to another club? 

Is buying at one price and selling at three times that figure not the very trading model we’re aspiring to?

Having said that, I get your point. Just pissed off that we’re back in this position and we don’t even have Joe Aribo to play up front 

[Ted E Bayer 484]

I think celtic are getting the better player in Miovski.  Can easily see him scoring a lot of goals for them and then being sold for double the price.

[OrangeRab 2,833]

No doubt Miovski is the better of the two. But doubt celtic would get him for less than 5.

If we’ve closed the gap by the January window I’d be happy taking a punt on Shankland for 1-2. If we’re not then don’t see the point spending any money on him

[CoplandRoad83 3,321]

Rather than spend 4 or 5 million on these types of players, the bigger question is why our scouting system seems unable to find them (or players of that quality and potential) when they are available for much cheaper. 

[Ted E Bayer 484]

4 minutes ago, OrangeRab said:

No doubt Miovski is the better of the two. But doubt celtic would get him for less than 5.

If we’ve closed the gap by the January window I’d be happy taking a punt on Shankland for 1-2. If we’re not then don’t see the point spending any money on him

I think they'll pay it.  Suggestions that they're prepping a 4.5 mil bid.  Miovski the younger of the two, probably the better all-rounder, but I'd argue that Shankland is more suited to our style of play.  But they will no doubt profit from bringing him in, even if they do pay Aberdeen a pretty penny.  He'll score a lot more goals with the chances he'll get and has that sell on that Shankland probably doesn.

The fact that we're agreeing Miovski is the better of the two players, and the fact that we'd both settle for Shankland is a sad indictment of where we are at the moment as a club.

[RFC55 109,417]

They’re going for the cunt from brondby they tried to get in the summer. Rumour has it he’s close to signing for them, if he does they aren’t going for Miovski

[KeyserSoze 14,619]

Anyone who can’t beat Lundstram to a ball over 300yrds should probably chuck it tbh

 

 

[Boybluesy 3,738]

To be fair I don't think Boyd would have beat Lundstram to that ball.  

[BlueKnight87 17,335]

33 minutes ago, CoplandRoad83 said:

Rather than spend 4 or 5 million on these types of players, the bigger question is why our scouting system seems unable to find them (or players of that quality and potential) when they are available for much cheaper. 

Our scouting system has been terrible. 

Thankfully we've started tearing it up. 

[Ted E Bayer 484]

Whoever we sign, I hope one of his main attributes is aerial ability.  We can be cross happy at times when we're struggling to break teams down.  Hit and hope cross from deep, cleared my SPL wooden plank defenders, back to Tav/Borna to repeat aimless/hopeful bullshit.

But if we had a player in there with the high-end aerial ability, then it could really make a difference.

[MacBoyd 5,506]

1 hour ago, Ted E Bayer said:

I think celtic are getting the better player in Miovski.  Can easily see him scoring a lot of goals for them and then being sold for double the price.

Can't disagree. Younger, faster, potential sell on fee. Sheep would want big money from us tho.

[MacBoyd 5,506]

1 hour ago, OrangeRab said:

No doubt Miovski is the better of the two. But doubt celtic would get him for less than 5.

If we’ve closed the gap by the January window I’d be happy taking a punt on Shankland for 1-2. If we’re not then don’t see the point spending any money on him

Yep exactly how I see it, if we lose any more ground there's no point spending decent money on a 28 year old who is unlikely to be a main striker for title winning side imo

[MacBoyd 5,506]

1 hour ago, Ted E Bayer said:

I think they'll pay it.  Suggestions that they're prepping a 4.5 mil bid.  Miovski the younger of the two, probably the better all-rounder, but I'd argue that Shankland is more suited to our style of play.  But they will no doubt profit from bringing him in, even if they do pay Aberdeen a pretty penny.  He'll score a lot more goals with the chances he'll get and has that sell on that Shankland probably doesn.

The fact that we're agreeing Miovski is the better of the two players, and the fact that we'd both settle for Shankland is a sad indictment of where we are at the moment as a club.

Worth bearing in mind there are other strikers I'm football. Just cos beale signed 2 utter duds(maybe 3) for big money abroad doesn't mean we only look at spl market 

[BlueSuedeSambas 54,060]

Rather than signing Miovski for a fortune from Aberdeen we should be putting systems in place that allow us to actually go out and find somebody like him to begin with when he’s still playing in Hungary and he’s not going to cost us a fortune.

 

[ayrshireranger 8,177]

Diallo probably available in January as Man U loan him again. Was sensational at Sunderland. 

[The Godfather 72,170]

23 hours ago, Ted E Bayer said:

Whoever we sign, I hope one of his main attributes is aerial ability.  We can be cross happy at times when we're struggling to break teams down.  Hit and hope cross from deep, cleared my SPL wooden plank defenders, back to Tav/Borna to repeat aimless/hopeful bullshit.

But if we had a player in there with the high-end aerial ability, then it could really make a difference.

Itten and Colak then

[OrangeRab 2,833]

7 hours ago, ayrshireranger said:

Diallo probably available in January as Man U loan him again. Was sensational at Sunderland. 

Can’t see us getting him. But would be a great addition as far as loan deals come.