Naismith to Hearts (again)

[Midlands Yellow 3,969]

Maybe we should just never have signed him ? It was the clubs choice , they made him the offer of how much a week and for how many years . Your saying he just waive 30+K a week and do the honourable thing ? Never happening and Norwich have the problem of their own making .

[Fuzzar 1,702]

Maybe we''re just sore because most of us, myself included, thought him a very good signing at the time.

We made a mistake and so did the powers that be at the time. That''s just how it goes sometimes.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Well if he is earning (I use the word loosely) 30k a week, that represents round about  £1.5 million for this year.  If we are paying 2/3 of that in his last season on the Norwich books while he is on loan, then it is around £1m - something we will have to grin and bear.  Personally, I would smile gracefuly and wish him well, it is up to his own conscience what happens and only he will know if he could have done something differently. 

[king canary 7,599]

For gods sake it isn''t that tough to understand.

Nobody is saying he should do the ''honourable'' thing and tear up his contract to save Norwich money.

People are just saying if you''re going to sit on the massive contract, don''t simultaneously bleat to the press about how you just want to play and that you''d play for free for Rangers. I''m sure if he actually did ''just want to play'' the club would be more than happy to come to some form of settlement over his contract. What he means by ''I''d play for Rangers for free'' is ''I''ll play for Rangers for free just as long as Norwich keep paying me.'' Which oddly enough isn''t a hugely attractive offer for the club.

[hampton canary 24]

If you can take a positive out of the situation it is a lot cheaper to pay the contract of a player we don''t want, than that of some managers we didn''t want.

This time next year nobody will care who is paying Naismith''s wages because it won''t be us.

Now we can focus on what to do with Oliveira, Pinto, Jarvis and McGovern.

[nutty nigel 7,526]

There''s a strong rumour that Naisy''s covering some of his salary himself so it may be an idea to hold on the hate. He''s a good man.

[ZLF 273]

Agreed Nutty

Some of the comments about players (Jarvis, Martin & Watkins recently ) who dont have the impact that we hope for when they sign are just embarrassing.

I didnt think he was the answer to our problems when we were looking to sign him, but his excellent debut and insightful comments post match made me wonder if he was just teh character we needed. Sadly we never heard that side of him again, either on or off pitch. Good luck, simply another signing that didnt work out.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="king canary"]For gods sake it isn''t that tough to understand.

Nobody is saying he should do the ''honourable'' thing and tear up his contract to save Norwich money.

People are just saying if you''re going to sit on the massive contract, don''t simultaneously bleat to the press about how you just want to play and that you''d play for free for Rangers. I''m sure if he actually did ''just want to play'' the club would be more than happy to come to some form of settlement over his contract. What he means by ''I''d play for Rangers for free'' is ''I''ll play for Rangers for free just as long as Norwich keep paying me.''

Which oddly enough isn''t a hugely attractive offer for the club.[/quote]Absolutely this.

If he''d just kept his mouth shut and worked hard regardless of if he was being selected or not, I''d have had little complaint and would have simply seen it as a very expensive deal that didn''t work out.

[hogesar 9,653]

I had heard the same Nutty. And when you then look at the amount of charity work and help with the homeless he''s done in the past i''m going to take a punt that some of our fans are ''jumping the gun'' in their criticism. Although that''s hardly unusual!

[lake district canary 4,531]

It''s quite odd that people want to think the worst about other people with very little actual knowledge about them. I guess we all do it from time to time. So Naismith said he would play for Rangers for free - well maybe he would, but couldn''t for contractural reasons. So he may even be paying some of his own way this season. So why not give him a break?

[JF 694]

I gather those that are vilifying him for his comments to the press didn’t join in with the Wes Hoolahan love in at the end of last season?....

[TIL 1010 4,737]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]There''s a strong rumour that Naisy''s covering some of his salary himself [/quote]

How does that work then Nutty ?

[king canary 7,599]

Covering his own salary = taking a bit of a pay cut.

Quick, knight the man.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]There''s a strong rumour that Naisy''s covering some of his salary himself [/quote]

How does that work then Nutty ?

[/quote]

Every day he draws £200 out of the cashpoint.  He then seals it in an envelope titled ''Wages''.  He passes the envelope from his right hand to his left.  Next he walks into the bank, opens the envelope and pays the said money into his account.

[Yellowbeagle 0]

[quote user="JF"]I gather those that are vilifying him for his comments to the press didn’t join in with the Wes Hoolahan love in at the end of last season?....[/quote]

You really can''t see the difference between Wes and Naismith? Wes may have been no saint but he has paid this club back many times over can you can''t say the same for Naismith.

[TIL 1010 4,737]

[quote user="king canary"]Covering his own salary = taking a bit of a pay cut.

Quick, knight the man.[/quote]

Exactly how i thought it was but what a strange way of putting it by Nutty. [:D]

[Hairy Canary 696]

Presumably if he''s done this it''s to facilitate a move to his preferred club. As it''s the last year of his contract I''m hoping this means we have been able to come to a more beneficial agreement than last year''s loan.

Hard to see how we will ever know the details but thank goodness the end is in sight.

[nutty nigel 7,526]

It probably works a lot better than some of the ridiculous stuff suggested on this thread. Contracts are legally binding in both ways. I don''t think it''s even possible to accept less money than contracted so it would have to come back through him.

[TIL 1010 4,737]

I thought you were down at the coast attending a week long conference for the National Association of Bog Cleaners & Bingo Callers ?

[BSEYELLOW 36]

Sure it is. If he wanted to accept less money - Ie Norwich saying "we will only pay 50% of your wages if you go out on loan" but Hearts only being able to afford 30%, he could sign an amendment to the contract with Norwich, absolving them of obligation to pay the final 20% for the remainder of his contract.

Absolutely no issues in an arrangement like that. Anything can change if both sides of a contract are willing to make said changes.

[nutty nigel 7,526]

Ok, run that by the PFA.

[TIL 1010 4,737]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Ok, run that by the PFA.[/quote]

Surely the FPA would know Nutty ? [:P]

[nutty nigel 7,526]

And just to add how would your suggestions work with regards to pension contributions etc.?

[nutty nigel 7,526]

I''m speaking this afternoon Tilly. This morning Mrs nutty is speaking about bog roll security in your ''hood....

[Hairy Canary 696]

Is the PFA a closed shop with powers to stop a member willingly changing his contract?

[nutty nigel 7,526]

I don''t know Hairy. I''m just a bog cleaner. But I would have thought the first contract would have to be settled in some way before any new terms and conditions were applied to a new one.

But whatever it does seem Naisy has helped fund a way to make this happen. He is a good Professional, well respected by young and old players alike, a good role model and a good man.

[king canary 7,599]

Shame he''s such a bad footballer then.

[Hairy Canary 696]

Neither do I Nutty, I was just wondering. My guess would be that the freedom lies with the player to agree changes and the PFA would only get involved if a club tried to force through something against the players wishes. I''m sure like all contractual things its far more complicated than most of us would realise but if both sides agree to something then there is likely to be a way round it.

[Guest]

I have always been a bit puzzled by the dislike of Naismith. If he clearly wants to play for us but the manager doesn''t want him to, then why wouldn''t he see out his contract?

I think his ability is a bit better than he is given credit for and I think he was expected to do great things but it hasn''t worked out.

Anyone remember Jim Blair, Dean Coney, RVW?

[Indy_Bones 441]

He''s played 44 games for us, hardly a small amount, of which around 41-42 of them in which he did pretty much nothing useful, and certainly not justifying in any way his crazy transfer fee or salary (of which the fee is not his problem, but the wages he does take a part in).

I''ll also not forget the way he kept berating Murphy during a particular game - despite the fact that during the game Murphy was doing a lot more than he was and didn''t deserve him going off at him!