steven naismith

[Dutch Toffee]

Getting Naismith in on a free represents good business by Moyes/Everton. So what if we took advantage of The Rangers FC's situation. I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate for a single second if it was the other way around.

whatever the reasons for Naismith's decision were, it was in favour of Everton. Whether he's percieved as a Judas or not by Rangers fans, I don't care. Interested in Everton's situation in this deal and Everton's situation alone. Hope the Rangers fans who dislike him now, hate him even more in a year time if he becomes a huge hit with us.

 

[zed]

Yes, it means precisely that.

fair enough. i dont bleat about players moving in or out of EFC. thats life/business

 

[james2805]

You know what.

I couldn't give two ****s about Rangers Football Club and/or their newco.

You don't get anywhere in life by being nice, I would happily send that football club to their grave if it benefits Everton.

COYB.

 

[Goat]

And we hate Bill Shankley and we hate St John, most of all we hate Big Ron and we’ll hang the Kopites one by one, on the banks of the Royal Blue Mersey.

Oh to hell with Liverpool and Rangers too, throw them all in the Mersey and we’ll fight fight fight, with all our might for the boys in the Royal Blue jersey.

 

[Summerskin]

And we hate Bill Shankley and we hate St John, most of all we hate Big Ron and we’ll hang the Kopites one by one, on the banks of the Royal Blue Mersey.

Oh to hell with Liverpool and Rangers too, throw them all in the Mersey and we’ll fight fight fight, with all our might for the boys in the Royal Blue jersey.

Racist.

 

[Cena]

And we hate Bill Shankley and we hate St John, most of all we hate Big Ron and we’ll hang the Kopites one by one, on the banks of the Royal Blue Mersey.

Oh to hell with Liverpool and Rangers too, throw them all in the Mersey and we’ll fight fight fight, with all our might for the boys in the Royal Blue jersey.

Deloodid will flag this

 

[Scottish Toffee]

Go and read Lee McCulloch's statement and tell me it isn't all a matter of 'you take the good times and you take the bad times'. It doesn't necessarliy follow that players should look after number one all of the time. Maybe that's it, in fact, Thatchers Children would probably see this as a simple case of rational economic decision making that laughs in the face of loyalty.

As I've said before: that's all fair enough - all this 'we did ok, it's a great new free signing, 'no brainer' etc etc. That's fine. Just dont bother piping up about Nick Barmby in the future though. And we'll see in the not too distant future when Everton have another player leave how far 'the morality argument' is a voice in the wilderness.

Tick tock.

Lee McCulloch may be happy to take the good with the bad; he has not really given his true reasons for sticking with Rangers. I imagine he is thinking that he is coming to the end of his career and the contract protection he receives through TUPE is the best option that he has as he might not be able to get a better offer from another employer. If this is the case then he is doing exactly what the rest of them are; protecting his family.

You are comparing situations which are not analogous in bringing up Barmby. The Rangers situation involves players being betrayed by their employers, and being put in a situation where their careers and lives are being placed on uncertain grounds. They are not simply seeking to move for a pay day in every case. Protecting your family's best interests will almost always outweigh any loyalty to an employer and this is what a lot of them are thinking of primarily.

Loyalty is not a one way thing either. You seem not to accept or acknowledge the fact that their loyalty might have been lost by the deception that has been displayed by the owners (including the new one). Would you like to work for a man who is trying to bully you into taking a decision that benefits him financially and not necessarily the club. I for one think that Green is a deceptive man who is not to be trusted and doubt he would instil the confidence in being treated the way I expect.

Green would lead me to fear that I would have to be stay at Rangers until he received what he deemed to be an acceptable offer. This might never come, and therefore my professional development, family and lifestyle would be put at risk.

These are hypothetical posits which I believe to be all relevant considerations which you would like to dismiss. Economics is a part of it but the players' decisions goes beyond this. Without knowing all the facts and considerations that the players had to take account of I don't think you can call into question their morality.

 

[Brennan]

Lee McCulloch may be happy to take the good with the bad; he has not really given his true reasons for sticking with Rangers. I imagine he is thinking that he is coming to the end of his career and the contract protection he receives through TUPE is the best option that he has as he might not be able to get a better offer from another employer. If this is the case then he is doing exactly what the rest of them are; protecting his family.

You are comparing situations which are not analogous in bringing up Barmby. The Rangers situation involves players being betrayed by their employers, and being put in a situation where their careers and lives are being placed on uncertain grounds. They are not simply seeking to move for a pay day in every case. Protecting your family's best interests will almost always outweigh any loyalty to an employer and this is what a lot of them are thinking of primarily.

Loyalty is not a one way thing either. You seem not to accept or acknowledge the fact that their loyalty might have been lost by the deception that has been displayed by the owners (including the new one). Would you like to work for a man who is trying to bully you into taking a decision that benefits him financially and not necessarily the club. I for one think that Green is a deceptive man who is not to be trusted and doubt he would instil the confidence in being treated the way I expect.

Green would lead me to fear that I would have to be stay at Rangers until he received what he deemed to be an acceptable offer. This might never come, and therefore my professional development, family and lifestyle would be put at risk.

These are hypothetical posits which I believe to be all relevant considerations which you would like to dismiss. Economics is a part of it but the players' decisions goes beyond this. Without knowing all the facts and considerations that the players had to take account of I don't think you can call into question their morality.

Lé Mobile Rep

 

[paulbefc]

Lee McCulloch may be happy to take the good with the bad; he has not really given his true reasons for sticking with Rangers. I imagine he is thinking that he is coming to the end of his career and the contract protection he receives through TUPE is the best option that he has as he might not be able to get a better offer from another employer. If this is the case then he is doing exactly what the rest of them are; protecting his family.

You are comparing situations which are not analogous in bringing up Barmby. The Rangers situation involves players being betrayed by their employers, and being put in a situation where their careers and lives are being placed on uncertain grounds. They are not simply seeking to move for a pay day in every case. Protecting your family's best interests will almost always outweigh any loyalty to an employer and this is what a lot of them are thinking of primarily.

Loyalty is not a one way thing either. You seem not to accept or acknowledge the fact that their loyalty might have been lost by the deception that has been displayed by the owners (including the new one). Would you like to work for a man who is trying to bully you into taking a decision that benefits him financially and not necessarily the club. I for one think that Green is a deceptive man who is not to be trusted and doubt he would instil the confidence in being treated the way I expect.

Green would lead me to fear that I would have to be stay at Rangers until he received what he deemed to be an acceptable offer. This might never come, and therefore my professional development, family and lifestyle would be put at risk.

These are hypothetical posits which I believe to be all relevant considerations which you would like to dismiss. Economics is a part of it but the players' decisions goes beyond this. Without knowing all the facts and considerations that the players had to take account of I don't think you can call into question their morality.

Game, set, match.

 

[davek]

Lee McCulloch may be happy to take the good with the bad; he has not really given his true reasons for sticking with Rangers. I imagine he is thinking that he is coming to the end of his career and the contract protection he receives through TUPE is the best option that he has as he might not be able to get a better offer from another employer. If this is the case then he is doing exactly what the rest of them are; protecting his family.

How can footy supporters be taken in by this 'playing for the family's best interests' and 'lives placed on uncertain grounds' stuff? Dear me. These people aren't the footballers of old who got a few quid stuffed in their boots after the game, and maybe got a pub landlord deal thrown in for the end of their careers. They're multi-millionaires, and Naismith has already pocketted the kind of wealth well in excess of what he and his family could reasonably spend for ten lifetimes. It's incredible how hoodwinked - or, worse still, forelock tugging - some supporters are about these pamapered fcukers. They wouldn't give a toss if you were laid off work mate.

You are comparing situations which are not analogous in bringing up Barmby. The Rangers situation involves players being betrayed by their employers, and being put in a situation where their careers and lives are being placed on uncertain grounds. They are not simply seeking to move for a pay day in every case. Protecting your family's best interests will almost always outweigh any loyalty to an employer and this is what a lot of them are thinking of primarily.

The only way it isn't analogous is that that lot up there cut and run for no fee and Barmby's exit coughed up £6M for us. And Rangers players weren't 'being betrayed' by the owners. Many of the players were hand in glove with the EBT. And what of the sense of betrayal felt by fans toward runaway players? Or is that sense of betrayal not as keenly felt?

Loyalty is not a one way thing either. You seem not to accept or acknowledge the fact that their loyalty might have been lost by the deception that has been displayed by the owners (including the new one). Would you like to work for a man who is trying to bully you into taking a decision that benefits him financially and not necessarily the club. I for one think that Green is a deceptive man who is not to be trusted and doubt he would instil the confidence in being treated the way I expect. Green would lead me to fear that I would have to be stay at Rangers until he received what he deemed to be an acceptable offer. This might never come, and therefore my professional development, family and lifestyle would be put at risk. These are hypothetical posits which I believe to be all relevant considerations which you would like to dismiss. Economics is a part of it but the players' decisions goes beyond this. Without knowing all the facts and considerations that the players had to take account of I don't think you can call into question their morality.

If ifs and ands were pots and pans all that. You cant seriously argue a point from a position where nothing has happened yet. The point is, they didn't stick around to find out how it'll all work out. Anyway, he's here now and that's that. But it doesn't mean tortuous arguments that try and present Naismith and his friends jumping ship in a positive light are correct.

 

[Cena]

Dave, you kno I rate your posts probably the highest of anyone on here, but I don't understand you on this one. Everything else your spot on like...

 

[Chang Elephant]

I couldn't give two ****s about Rangers Football Club and/or their newco.
You don't get anywhere in life by being nice, I would happily send that football club to their grave if it benefits Everton.
COYB.

Excellent post, we need to develop a ruthless streak.

 

[andy4efc]

Rangers and Rangers fans can blame who they want, but the fact they are losing players for free is based 110% on teh shoulders of Rangers and their owners from before this newco crap. Everton haven't done anything wrong, we didnt need to notify Rangers of us going for Naismith.

All we have done, is sign a free agent.

 

[Scottish Toffee]

How can footy supporters be taken in by this 'playing for the family's best interests' and 'lives placed on uncertain grounds' stuff? Dear me. These people aren't the footballers of old who got a few quid stuffed in their boots after the game, and maybe got a pub landlord deal thrown in for the end of their careers. They're multi-millionaires, and Naismith has already pocketted the kind of wealth well in excess of what he and his family could reasonably spend for ten lifetimes. It's incredible how hoodwinked - or, worse still, forelock tugging - some supporters are about these pamapered fcukers. They wouldn't give a toss if you were laid off work mate.



The only way it isn't analogous is that that lot up there cut and run for no fee and Barmby's exit coughed up £6M for us. And Rangers players weren't 'being betrayed' by the owners. Many of the players were hand in glove with the EBT. And what of the sense of betrayal felt by fans toward runaway players? Or is that sense of betrayal not as keenly felt?



If ifs and ands were pots and pans all that. You cant seriously argue a point from a position where nothing has happened yet. The point is, they didn't stick around to find out how it'll all work out. Anyway, he's here now and that's that. But it doesn't mean tortuous arguments that try and present Naismith and his friends jumping ship in a positive light are correct.

I am not trying to present them in a good light, my argument is more nuanced than that. I am merely arguing that you cannot judge them in a bad light yourself when you do not know all of the factors that have gone into a difficult decision. Please enlighten me if you posses a detailed file containing the facts of the Rangers situation including the extensive reasons the players have given for not transferring their contracts.

I understand that some fans will feel betrayed (many don't feel betrayed now that they have let their initial feelings cool off - many aim their hatred towards the former owners for creating the situation), players are well paid and that he wouldn't care if I was laid off work. I don't care if he is laid off work. I am simply asking you not to judge a player as a rat when there is not enough evidence to show the motivation.

Fans/consumers are always going to be the ones to lose out in a situation like this. However, football is just a game and doesn't have a huge impact on the things that are important in their life and they will be able to cope. It has happened before to other clubs and it will happen again. They do not have to work in such conditions and so cannot force the hand of a player though.

Barmby is not analogous. He was simply out for the money and forced the move. You cannot claim the same for all of the players who have left Rangers. For some it may be about the money, but for others it may not. Please do not generalise the situation and clump them all together when nobody has access to all the facts.

Moreover, most decisions are made on the balance of probabilities which are the ifs and ands as you like to call them. There were time frames in which they had to make their decision which did not allow for them to wait for the situation to pan out and so they had to make a decision based on what they could discern from what was presented.

Players are not saints, I will never argue this. I am just asking you not to judge Naismith when you are not privy to the facts.

 

[Nails]

Am I the only person on here that thinks Davek is a [Poor language removed]?