Chermiti, Miovski and Thelwell

Lets be blunt: the "Thelwell reason" argument falls apart if you look at it properly. Liking Moore but not Chermiti isnt necessarily about the man who signed them. Supporters judge players on output, promise and fit. Weve backed some signings and not others for reasons of performance, not just because of a name on a contract.

Fees change the conversation

Money matters in how criticism lands. Youre spot on pointing out Miovski hasnt hit the mark so far. Hes largely out of view for many of us, and crucially he wasnt an eye-watering outlay. As you said, our outlay on him was under 3m, and that naturally dulls the heat on his failures compared with players who carried bigger price tags and potential add-ons.

When a club spends big, scrutiny follows. Its not hypocrisy to treat those cases differently. Its reality. Fans react more strongly when theres a lot of our money on the line, or when a player is meant to be the forward to solve our problems immediately.

Chermiti remains the benchmark

Until anything changes, Chermiti is the yardstick for big fees at Ibrox. Skov might end up costing more, but hes not our player yet and plenty of supporters dont want that move. That uncertainty means Chermiti still stands as the example people point to when arguing about value for money.

And lets give credit where its due: Chermiti clearly has talent. The real test is whether he delivers consistently enough to trigger those add-ons you mentioned. If he does, then the debate about who was signed by whom will feel academic because the numbers on the pitch will have answered it.

Where we go from here

Truth is, this discussion is more practical than personal. Criticism should follow performance and context. You can dislike a signing while agreeing the same person made good calls elsewhere. Thats how supporters think. Keep the focus on what matters: output, value and whether players help the team win.

Written by Kaisercaillaud: 25 May 2026