Naismith

[KiwiScot 1,684]

Reading the Sunday Post(can''t find any link) and Naismith seems keen on staying at Hearts or at least pretending like he is."I have enjoyed it here...If circumstances allow then it is definitely something that would interest me. But it is up to Norwich. They are going in a different direction, but I signed a contract for another year. If that is to change then they will play a big part in it. Whatever it is , I think getting a bit of clarity is what everybody needs"The Hearts boss talks about wanting him to stay as well, but his "situation" is difficult saying Naismith needs to sort something out with Norwich

[king canary 8,757]

So basically, we need to pay him to get rid of him.

[Yellowbeagle 0]

His way of saying i''m willing to go if Norwich pay up the remaining year.

[rock bus 1,059]

Agreed , sounds like he’s asking for a big payout.

Must admit I’m getting a bit sick of the way he is leaching off the club. All we keep hearing from him is that he just wants to be playing and that’s the most important thing. If that really is the case he can give up some of his contract.

I know some will say why should he, we gave him the stupid contract and would I give up £x millions. I get that BUT it’s not like he hasn’t made enough money to happily retire.

We just need rid ASAP

[king canary 8,757]

I don''t blame him. We were stupid enough to give him that contract so he''s perfectly entitled to sit on it, knowing he''s unlikely to get even half of what we''re paying him in Scotland.

[Clint 221]

Don''t forget he said he was willing to play for Hearts for free*

*subject to us continuing to pay his wages.

[KiwiScot 1,684]

Any deal for Naismith will involve paying out his contract as any transfer would. If Norwich feel another club can pay that and maybe a transfer fee then he has no say in the matter. If he wants to play at Hearts he needs to put his hand in his pocket. It depends on what clubs want him for that price. He signed the high money deal and didn''t perform. If that''s hamstrung him for another club he knows what he needs to do.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

Unlike some, who are content just to take the money while doing nothing, he does genuinely seem to want to play football.

[king canary 8,757]

Didn''t he turn down a loan move to play in the Premier league because they wouldn''t pay him as much as here? Doesn''t sound all that fussed about playing...

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

If Naismith wants to be greedy and cling to the full rewards of his contract then recall him and play him with the kids for a year.

This should effectively shorten his career as he plans it and will therefore impact upon his future earnings, whether in Scotland or elsewhere.

Let him find out that the contract he seems to cling to can come back and bite him in the bum.

Decency and fair play should indicate to him that his contribution to NCFC has been minimal and even negative and that he has ''conned'' enough out of us already.

BUT, he''s a pro-footballer and money is involved.

[Hackedoff 0]

I think most of us agree that if we were on his wages why would he give it up?! Its probably going to be the last time he’s on that amount so can’t really begrudge him for it.

The problem is if he is serious about playing then he will have to walk away by mutual consent because if he comes back here he will be plying his trade in the u23’s games and at he doesn’t have too many playing years left in him

[gissing canary 2]

Whilst I agree with some of the points, what really annoys me is that he seems to advertise himself as “a good solid hardworking pro”.

His behaviour on and off the pitch for us has been very poor. Falls over and appeals a lot, that’s it on the pitch and off the pitch just wants the cash. But let’s be honest the reason we are talking about the wages and no one wants to pay them is that he has been awful for us.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="king canary"]Didn''t he turn down a loan move to play in the Premier league because they wouldn''t pay him as much as here? Doesn''t sound all that fussed about playing...[/quote]I have no idea. The reality is that he was out injured for most of the first part of this season. Once fit, we made him available to go on loan in the last winter window, which was the earliest time he could move anywhere, and he promptly took up the offer of playing for Hearts. Looks to me like he does just want to play football.

[STFU 0]

Off the pitch I think he does more than a lot of people:

"Naismith is an ambassador for Dyslexia Scotland, launched a scheme to help ease the progress of injured ex-service personnel back into work, and supports centres for the homeless in Glasgow and Liverpool. In August 2014, he donated tickets for Everton matches to be distributed via Liverpool jobcentres to unemployed people actively looking for work."

[nutty nigel 7,902]

Surely the ball is in Hearts court? If they want him they are going to have to make it worth our while to release him? Probably a game going on here that will not be resolved until the end of the window. Which is not ideal for us. What I don''t get is the personal stuff about Naismith and Jarvis too.

[0ridgemanddMMyyyy0Falseen-USTrue 0]

It appears quite simple make him an offer that is acceptable to Norwich. Should he decline the offer keep him on the books for a year but tell him to stay away from the ground. A year out of football at his age won''t help.

Wouldn''t want his attitude to rub off on the youngsters and it would show whether he wants to play or wants the money.

[nutty nigel 7,902]

What attitude?

[TIL 1010 5,246]

[quote user="king canary"]Didn''t he turn down a loan move to play in the Premier league because they wouldn''t pay him as much as here? Doesn''t sound all that fussed about playing...[/quote]I think it was Sunderland who at the time were struggling in The Premiership and as their rapid fall from grace shows they certainly dodged a bullet. They could not even than apparently match the terms he was or rather still is here.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="king canary"]Didn''t he turn down a loan move to play in the Premier league because they wouldn''t pay him as much as here? Doesn''t sound all that fussed about playing...[/quote]I think it was Sunderland who at the time were struggling in The Premiership and as their rapid fall from grace shows they certainly dodged a bullet. They could not even than apparently match the terms he was or rather still is here.

[/quote]Yes, that really is the likeliest explanation. That a club that is paying Jack Rodwell, 70,000 pounds a week or 80,000, depending on which paper you read, and which had a 68.3m wage bill that season, compared with ours of 55m, couldn''t match our terms. It couldn''t possibly be, just supposing this rumour about Sunderland is true, that Naismith didn''t fancy moving to that shambles of a club, and might even have felt he still had something to prove at Carrow Road...

[TIL 1010 5,246]

Leaving your usual sarcasm aside Purple was that not what was being said at the time hence my use of the word apparently ?

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]Leaving your usual sarcasm aside Purple was that not what was being said at the time hence my use of the word apparently ?[/quote]I guess I resort to polite sarcasm to stop myself being blatantly rude. But it is not my most attractive feature, I''ll grant you.All sorts of things get said, or seem to get said, or are believed to have been said. or are said to have been said. In the process 2 = 2 often becomes 9 and black becomes white. I can think of several example where posters (not you among them, in these instances) claimed (and were believed) to have absolutely rock-solid hard factual information that proved to be wrong in every respect. This is why the only poster here I trust is Bethnal. because he will apply a professional journalist''s rigour to anything he hears.In this case I applied a simple test. Is it likely to be true that Sunderand, based on their need to avoid relegation that season, and their as-detailed significantly higher wage bill, would not have offered Naismith a deal at least as good as - and probably better than - that he had with Norwich City? It is not. Is it more likely that someone could not really understand why Naismith would not want to join Sunderland, and so just assumed money was the stumbling block? Yes.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Never wanted to come here in the first place. Looking forward to dispensing of him.

[hampton canary 24]

I have never been a fan of Naismith since day one and would struggle to name a Norwich game where he made a significant contribution. On that basis alone, I cannot see many clubs being prepared to pay his high wages for a player who basically talks a good game.

It is clear that Hearts cannot get anywhere near to matching his current wages, and he probably doesn''t want to cancel his contract with the club because of what he will lose.

Personally I think we have given this player enough money and if he genuinely wants to play for Hearts next season then his agent needs to come up with a deal that suits both him and Norwich City.

[king canary 8,757]

From the edp...

"Naismith’s representatives were in discussions with the Black Cats regarding a potential move earlier on Wednesday but the Daily Record reported on Wednesday evening no agreement can be reached over a permanent or a loan deal. Skysports claim Naismith’s personal terms are the sticking point."

It isn''t just some forum types claiming to be in the know, it was fairly widely reported at the time.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="king canary"]From the edp...

"Naismith’s representatives were in discussions with the Black Cats regarding a potential move earlier on Wednesday but the Daily Record reported on Wednesday evening no agreement can be reached over a permanent or a loan deal. Skysports claim Naismith’s personal terms are the sticking point."

It isn''t just some forum types claiming to be in the know, it was fairly widely reported at the time.[/quote]But other reports said  this:"The deal collapsed just after 6pm this evening with the two clubs way apart in their valuation of the player. The Scot has been training with Gordon Strachan''s national squad today

but was ready to drive down to Wearside to discuss personal terms with

the Black Cats. But the deal never reached that advanced stage with Naismith being told the clubs could not agree a fee."Even if personal terms were a problem that could just have easily been that Naismith wanted a longer permanent move than Sunderland fancied giving him.

[king canary 8,757]

Yes. Or it could be that Sunderland didn''t want to pay him enough, despite you dismissing that idea based on nothing but your own speculation.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="king canary"]Yes. Or it could be that Sunderland didn''t want to pay him enough, despite you dismissing that idea based on nothing but your own speculation.[/quote]The very specific idea I was saying was unlikely, based on hard evidence about the respective wage bills, was this:They [Sunderland] could not even than apparently match the terms he was or rather still is here.In other words that Naismith was on such a large wage with us in the Championship that Sunderland, despite being in the PL and having a much larger wage bill that season, could not at least equal it.. With  the clear implication that we were paying Naismith far too much, and that was why the deal fell through. So this supposed problem was being used by as a way of attacking our wage structure.Whereas, even if the problem was money, it might well have been that we were not paying Naismith over the odds but that he saw a move back to the PL as a way of getting a big increase, and Sunderland could not stomach that. Which is more likely than his wage with us being so large not even a PL club could match it.And that is even supposing it was just to do with money, rather than, say, the length of contract he wanted, about which I could easily see that he would have asked for longer than Sunderland were willing to accept. And all of the above only becomes relevant if it was about personal terms and not, as that report I quoted says, about a complete failure to agree on the transfer fee in the first place.

[hogesar 10,763]

Yeah, I think logic dictates that Purples view is more likely.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

I rather think that dwelling on this issue is futile.

Lots of transfers break down for all sorts of reasons. Probably most dealings flounder at some point.

It would have been a dream come true for City to unload the player for a fee at that moment in time and, needless to say if Sunderland had signed him it would have promised an immediate and long-term improvement in our fortunes.

A worse, and probably more costly, purchase than RVW ever was, and at least PL money cushioned the loss of Ricky. We are still counting the cost of Naismith.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="hogesar"]Yeah, I think logic dictates that Purples view is more likely.[/quote]Hoggy, I don''t doubt that Naismith was and is one of our highest earners. But I assume his wage, like that of the others, was cut on relegation (our wage bill dropped from 67.1m in the PL to 55.1m in that season in the Championship, despite the number of football staff falling by just one, from 138 to 137). It does not seem likely that Sunderland, with Moyes as their manager very much wanting Naismith, would not at the very least have been willing and able to match his relegation-cut wages.