Contentious opinion

[Super_Ally 0]

Of the players we are strongly linked with; Naismith, Cuellar, Beasley, McCulloch and Faubert(the least likely admittedly), I would most like to sign McCulloch.

 

Its a close run thing. Naismith's age means he's a close second.

 

I don't remember playing v Cuellar. I think his status is immediatley elevated by being Spanish.

 

Beasley. Imo, he'll either be excellent or shocking. Is he soft or is he hard. That will honestly decide his fate in Scotland.

 

TBH I hadn't heard of Faubert until we were linked. The fact that his team want 4mil plus will not make me immediately assume he's excellent, i'll make up my own mind.

 

McCulloch is a strong player. Can play wide left or upfront. Is good in the air. If asked to play wide he'll give width, unlike other players I could name, such as Hartley who doesn't have the discipline to play wide when Walter/Eck asked him to. When attacking from the right he'll make the effort to be an extra attacker at the back post. He'll give 100% and will work hard for the team. Knows all about the Bears. Will offer competition to Adam and forward positions. IMO will be a very good signing. Yes many will say this is symptoamtic of Murray's downsizing, but of the players we are strongly linked with, I would be happiest with his capture.

 

Now I'll duck for cover as I am shot down.

[Gribz 919]

I totally see what your saying and I think he would be the "safest" of all the signings.

 

Your right about Beasley he will be a hit or a miss.

 

Faubert excites me a bit though as he is strong and fast and if we got him i think he'd be the best of the bunch.

 

I cant comment on Cuellar as i havent seem him play.

 

But Im not bothered about Naismith at all, he can stay at Killie for all i care.

[ascender 352]

I posted a similar thing last night Ally. I don't think its as bad on this board, but on other forums McCulloch is getting slaughtered by guys who probably haven't seen enough of him to form a reasoned opinion. I know I haven't.

 

We're a fickle bunch, but some people who were complaining about us paying over the odds for unknown foreign players are now complaining that we're paying reasonable sums for Scottish players who the manager has worked with or who are proven in British football.

 

You just can't please everyone.

[Gribz 919]

Its true what you 2 said last night, that if it was an Austrian guy for 2 million not a word would be said but its coz he is Scottish.

 

But he is a proven Scotland international and IIRC Scotland are in the top 20 in the world rankings and can beat Austria.

 

1.8 million would be a perfect fee but if we have to pay a bit more its not a waste

[ascender 352]

Exactly Gribz. People are also slagging off his age, but he's 28/29 and should be coming on to his peak. Its also not a lot of money in to today's market and while we don't have much cash, people have to realise that we have to pay at least near to the market rate for players as we're not the only club out there.

 

As for his nationality, we all know that in the current climate the Scots lads are often the first ones to get flak, whether they deserve it or not. But also, do some fans think that we're signing McCulloch because we prefer him over Ronaldo?

[Super_Ally 0]

Exactly Gribz. People are also slagging off his age, but he's 28/29 and should be coming on to his peak.

 

At McCulloch's age we could quite easily get another 4/5 seasons out of him, so I don't understand that arguement either.

[bmck 117]

i think he'd be a decent signing, and at 2 mil is decent value for money - but i wouldn't like him the most out of that list.

[ian1964 10,761]

IMO it's a decent signing, he's a grafter,knows the SPL amd a regular international in a decent Scotland team,no doubt he;ll do a job for us