BC2 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I'll come clean immediately - I'm a timposter, but not one to deliberately wind anybody up, although I do like a good debate. I'm intrigued by the media treatment of Naismith's possible transfers to Rangers. This may not reflect the views on here or amongst other Rangers fans. If you were NOT selling your house which you thought was worth, let's say �£200,000, and you were initially offered �£40,000 and after three more offers �£75,000 now and the possibility of �£75,000 later depending on certain conditions, would you sell? The precise figures may not be quite right, but I'm sure you get the drift. PS Good site. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ascender 352 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I think most Gers fans have been embarrassed by the way we have tried to do this deal, so I don't think you'll find people complaining about your post. At the same time, it looks like we finally did meet their valuation, only for them to say they wanted an extra £500,000. I also don't understand why Killie were happy to name us and what was going on when they won't name any of the other clubs involved. All very strange. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I think most Gers fans have been embarrassed by the way we have tried to do this deal, so I don't think you'll find people complaining about your post. At the same time, it looks like we finally did meet their valuation, only for them to say they wanted an extra �£500,000. I also don't understand why Killie were happy to name us and what was going on when they won't name any of the other clubs involved. All very strange. I personally am very sceptical of there being any other teams who have made offers. What happened to this other team 3 or 4 weeks ago that then never materialised ? Johnston (the Killie chairman) comes off to me as someone who shouldn't be running a football club with the way he has tried to handle this affair (not that I am saying our esteemed leaders are much better....). Offering 400k in the first place was stupid negotiating IMO - there was no way that Killie would sell at that price - yes we should try to lowball but at 400k it wasn't even lowballing, it was a joke. But Killie then kept moving the goalposts on the deal and if we ultimately came up with their valuation (I don't think anyone truly knows if we did - aside from those involved) then we were right to walk away when they rejected it. As for them naming us and not others that would depend if we made our bid public (or didn't ask for it to be kept private) whilst other (supposed) bidders might have requested confidentiality. As to your question BC2.... it depends on the circumstances and just how much of the mooted figures are accurate. Killie are in serious debt, they obviously rate Naismith and, dependent on what the conditions for the additional amount are, then they would be expected to see him fulfill the conditions and they get their extra amount (unless the conditions are ala Michael Ball - in which case even as a Gers fan I would be sceptical of doing business with us). Also depends on if there are other interested parties and we don't know if there are or are not. You will find we are a pleasant bunch for the most part on here - here is hoping to a closer run championship this season ! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC2 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Author Share Posted July 24, 2007 Good, fair and balanced replies, and I accept that Rangers are not the only party who has let themself down here. Craig - I'm sorry but I'll be quite happy to win the league comfortably again, but I realise this is probably wishful thinking - most Celtic fans forget it has been 33 years since they last won 3 titles in a row. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wija 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 BC2 - To be fair with you it is a fooking embarrassment that we have done business in this manner. It is now the fact that Naismith wants to leave and that there is no way he can now play for Killie... Lots of bears are saying he is only worth that amount, what I want to know if this is the case - why are we even buying him then? He has played a fair few good games and has the potential, and I guess that is our point of view. But we have held a club basically to ransom to the point where they sell him for a lower some (our evalution). Not to be too cheeky - we have apparently taken over your biscuit tin and it is embarrassing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 850 Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I personally am very sceptical of there being any other teams who have made offers. What happened to this other team 3 or 4 weeks ago that then never materialised ? Johnston (the Killie chairman) comes off to me as someone who shouldn't be running a football club with the way he has tried to handle this affair (not that I am saying our esteemed leaders are much better....). Offering 400k in the first place was stupid negotiating IMO - there was no way that Killie would sell at that price - yes we should try to lowball but at 400k it wasn't even lowballing, it was a joke. But Killie then kept moving the goalposts on the deal and if we ultimately came up with their valuation (I don't think anyone truly knows if we did - aside from those involved) then we were right to walk away when they rejected it. As for them naming us and not others that would depend if we made our bid public (or didn't ask for it to be kept private) whilst other (supposed) bidders might have requested confidentiality. As to your question BC2.... it depends on the circumstances and just how much of the mooted figures are accurate. Killie are in serious debt, they obviously rate Naismith and, dependent on what the conditions for the additional amount are, then they would be expected to see him fulfill the conditions and they get their extra amount (unless the conditions are ala Michael Ball - in which case even as a Gers fan I would be sceptical of doing business with us). Also depends on if there are other interested parties and we don't know if there are or are not. You will find we are a pleasant bunch for the most part on here - here is hoping to a closer run championship this season ! Agree with all that Craig, but I also agree with Wija at the bottom saying why are we going for Naismith in the first place for 1.5 million as some Bears (myself included) dont think he would be worth more than that. IF and its a big if, that there was another team with a bid, i think it was Bristol City a long while back who showed the interest but never followed it up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 If Bristol City or any non SPL team bid £1.5M Killie would bite the hand off them. They're just playing funny buggers with us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboyharley 5 Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Does anyone else think that due to the boys obvious problems with handling the pressure of this move that it will be more and more difficult for Killie to sell him? Jim Jeffries saying that he feels for the boy because he knows it will be affecting him, not sleeping at night etc. Is that really the kind of guy thats gonna be able to handle a big european game or the intensity of the OF games? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CammyF 8,009 Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 BC2 - To be fair with you it is a fooking embarrassment that we have done business in this manner. It is now the fact that Naismith wants to leave and that there is no way he can now play for Killie... Lots of bears are saying he is only worth that amount, what I want to know if this is the case - why are we even buying him then? He has played a fair few good games and has the potential, and I guess that is our point of view. But we have held a club basically to ransom to the point where they sell him for a lower some (our evalution). Not to be too cheeky - we have apparently taken over your biscuit tin and it is embarrassing. Thats not strictly true - we met Killies demands and had an offer accepted last Thursday, only for Killie to up their valuation by another �£500,000. As I said on another thread, Killie ACCEPTED (then declined) an offer from us little over 6 months ago of �£400,000. That being the case, why should we have gone in with say a �£2M pound bid this time around? Am I the only one wondering why Killie have only gone public on OUR bids, but not on the 'other bids' they have on the table? Or, could it be that we are the ONLY club who have bid for the player? If Killie have other bids from other clubs, let them deal with these clubs. We are right to walk away from this deal - ball is in their (and the players court). Killie are playing a dangerous game as if the player and his advisors are to be believed, Rangers are the only club he is willing to talk to. Cammy F 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ascender 352 Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Did we actually have the offer accepted last week though? I thought Killie said we were close in terms of money but way off in actual terms. Which seems to tie in with the rumours that we offered 1.5M which is what they wanted, but were wanting to pay it in two installments and that there were conditions attached. It is a very strange one, but I think we're far from blameless in all of this. As for the valuation, I think its fair enough given how much we spent on Thomson for example. In that respect, I think Killie are fair enough. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.