CONFIMRED - Glenn Murray on loan

[Ian Royal]

I think we will be looking at loans rather than transfers in in this window as we will have more room to manouvre in the summer when high earners are moved on. Footballing reasons put aside completely for a moment, with the requirements of FFP and the loss of revenue from falling attendances it is too much of a financial gamble to buy Murray. And then you factor in his form and it makes even less sense.

If we could sell Pog (not going to happen BTW), then yes, Murray would be an adequate like for like replacement. We can't afford them both

Talk of the finances is speculation. We know its tight but we have no idea how tight and you're ignoring the point i made about Murray already being factored in to budget, includuing the agreed fee, presumably.

Any loanee we get we'll still have to pay some wages and possibly a loan fee. Good loanees aren't going to come that cheap. Any loanee still poses the normal signing gamble kf how they will fit in, settle and perform. Already there with Murray. Attendances are a small slice of our income.

Complaints of Murray's performance are vastly overrated.

[Silver Fox]

You're not going to get page hits on your blog if you just copy and paste your "article" on to here

[Ian Royal]

PS it nice to have a pleasant amd reasoned conversation about it though. You're a gent.

[Tommy Jenkins]

Yes I have got this info from other resources which is more accurate than my own and all are not all my words.

However no one else has opened the debate on these interesting facts.

So hopefully some people find it interesting and have a view ?

I

[Pepe the Horseman]

You should speak to Ian Royal about it.

[Vision]

Yes I have got this info from other resources which is more accurate than my own and all are not all my words.

However no one else has opened the debate on these interesting facts.

So hopefully some people find it interesting and have a view ?

I

Well if they're not your words then what's your opinion.

If the OP (or you) want a young proven goalscorer for this level then why name 3 players who aren't proven at this level yet. Afobe has been a bust when he's played at this level so far, Wells has the same number of League goals as Murray (who isn't good enough apparently although by the end the op seems to admit he is) and Bamford who has had a pretty good 3 months (scoring 2 more goals than Murray in 1 appearance more)

I'm not saying any of them wouldn't be good signings as such but your (or the OP's its very confusing) opinion of a young proven goalscorer is different to mine.

[Hampshire Royal]

6 goals in 16 games is the equivalent of 17 goals in a full season. That's not a bad return for an under-performing team.

[Hoop Blah]

I generally agree with HB posts but I cant on this one

My dislike of Murray (and I think its true of others) is that he just doesnt look like he wants to be at Reading at all.

It seems like he thinks he is a bit too good for the Championship and as a result he doesnt put the effort in. He doesnt jump for the ball that effectively and would rather stand his ground and try to claim a free kick. I don't actually think he has that much movement and what he does is slow and he certainly doesn't put his body on the line and make that extra effort to get on the end of a cross. And what was he doing on Saturday? Head the ball man instead of letting it drop and skying it!

Won't be sorry to see him go even if it means we have Pog back

It's a fair comment in a way, he may not throw himself about as much or look like he's not that interested in being here, although I'm not sure I'd buy into that. If he doesn't then it would certainly sway my thinking into the don't keep him side of the fence.

I think it's more about whether he wants to be here under Clarke though. How many of our players have really looked that motivated or showing the kind of blood and thunder performances you're talking about under Adkins? Very few unfortunately.

Clarke is his own man and might not want Murray, or Murray might not want to be here. If that's the case then we won't be keeping him.

I don't think it comes down to him being good enough though. The biggest issue for me is his age. We'd be investing a lot in a player who's probably passed his best and isn't going to appreciate in value at all over the length of contract he'd be after. My biggest worry is that we have to sign him up for longer than he'd be of use, ala Roberts.

[DaddyKuhl]

All of that waffle and you have failed to argue the point that Glenn Murray is not good enough.

[Woodcote Royal]

Confidence and form is key. Slightly better performances and a couple of results will see Murray and the team more successful.

No one has been able to give a single credible suggestion for where we'd find better for cheaper yet.

I think the main thrust of the argument is that, with FFP, a permanent deal for Murray doesn't offer value for money in this climate, especially when there are other areas of the team that urgently need strengthening. It's a big gamble considering his current form. Do we basically spend the whole budget for the window on a 31 year old on relatively high wages and in poor form?

The alternative is to stick with Pog, because we are stuck with him potentially for the next 18 months and FFP makes paying up his contract a non option this season, strengthen elsewhere and re-evaluate in the summer when high earners like Guthrie and Drenthe are off the payroll.

Best post so far and in response to some typical guff from "Know Nothing" Ian Royal.

The fact we're stuck with Pog for 18 months is nothing short of depressing and no amount of belated goals will compensate for his contribution to the financial black hole left by his fellow russian waste of time, space and money

However, even this doesn't justify spending £2m? on a 30+ plus striker firing on 2 cylinders at best.

Despite the result, it felt great to sit in my seat on Saturday for the first time since I can't remember when but any striker worth that kind of money would have converted one of the chances that came his way.

In comparison to selling a young Shane Long for as little as £4.5m, this would be one sh*t deal for a cash strapped club like ours.

If the loan could be extended, I would be happy with that but spending serious money on, at best, a short term fix would be simply crazy.

[Gilksy]

LOL at Murray not being good enough.

[Wycombe Royal]

6 goals in 16 games is the equivalent of 17 goals in a full season. That's not a bad return for an under-performing team.

However two of those were on his debut and he scored 3 in his first 4 matches. So look at his recent form and is not nearly as good.

[From Despair To Where?]

I think we will be looking at loans rather than transfers in in this window as we will have more room to manouvre in the summer when high earners are moved on. Footballing reasons put aside completely for a moment, with the requirements of FFP and the loss of revenue from falling attendances it is too much of a financial gamble to buy Murray. And then you factor in his form and it makes even less sense.

If we could sell Pog (not going to happen BTW), then yes, Murray would be an adequate like for like replacement. We can't afford them both

Talk of the finances is speculation. We know its tight but we have no idea how tight and you're ignoring the point i made about Murray already being factored in to budget, includuing the agreed fee, presumably.

Any loanee we get we'll still have to pay some wages and possibly a loan fee. Good loanees aren't going to come that cheap. Any loanee still poses the normal signing gamble kf how they will fit in, settle and perform. Already there with Murray. Attendances are a small slice of our income.

Complaints of Murray's performance are vastly overrated.

But a loanee will be on a smaller scale financially overall and doesn't commit us beyond the summer. Sign Murray and we're looking at 18 months minimum of comparatively big wages, Pog Mk 2 potentially, in other words. I've ignored your point about Murray being factored in to the budget because it's largely irrelevant to the point I'm making. We haven't paid the fee yet, I doubt we're paying him at a level he would demand as a permanent signing and we've just fired and hired managers, Add to that a reduction in income from a loss of matchday revenue, even to the extent of as little as £400,000 over the course of the season and I'll be very surprised if the budget isn't being reassessed.

Yes, talk of finances is speculation but you have to prepare for what is reasonably a worst case scenario and considering the gaping holes in our squad at present, a permanent deal for Murray is a relatively large outlay that is very hard to justify in the bigger picture. It's an eggs in one basket signing.

I'm not arguing about Murray's ability (even though, IMO he has been a disapointment) and I'm definitely not arguing that Pog will offer us more, I'm arguing that in the light of the last 3 years financial recklessness, the last thing we need to do is compound it more. We are stuck with Pog whether we like it or not, no-one's going to buy him and we can't afford to pay him off.

It's a cliche that we're thoroughly sick of hearing but, to coin SJM's favourite phrase, we really do need to cut our cloth accordingly and that means shifting big earners off the payroll, not adding more.

I'll leave it at that. We'll obviously just have to agree to disagree.

[Gilksy]

6 goals in 16 games is the equivalent of 17 goals in a full season. That's not a bad return for an under-performing team.

However two of those were on his debut and he scored 3 in his first 4 matches. So look at his recent form and is not nearly as good.

Considering how we've struggled in front of goal, both in creating and putting away chances, and our miserable form this season, the boy's done good tbf. You don't often see a better ratio than that in the bottom third of the table.

[Cookie]

6 goals in 16 games is the equivalent of 17 goals in a full season. That's not a bad return for an under-performing team.

However two of those were on his debut and he scored 3 in his first 4 matches. So look at his recent form and is not nearly as good.

Considering how we've struggled in front of goal, both in creating and putting away chances, and our miserable form this season, the boy's done good tbf. You don't often see a better ratio than that in the bottom third of the table.

Good point Gilksy. We ARE a struggling team and he has still bagged a decent total of goals.

[P!ssed Off]

Agreed.
The fees may well have been factored in but I'm sure it would have been a case of "£25,000 per week and a £1.5 million transfer fee, that's very expensive but we can stretch the budget given he'll likely be a star player and win us games single-handedly."

But obviously that's not been the case. On debut vs Fulham it may have been the case, but not in his 15 games since.

I'm talking goals like Cox's at Middlesbrough, Charlton's Vetokele's at the Madejski.
When games have been tight and one accurate finish could have gained us 3 points, Murray has not produced any goods.

[P!ssed Off]

6 goals in 16 games is the equivalent of 17 goals in a full season. That's not a bad return for an under-performing team.

However two of those were on his debut and he scored 3 in his first 4 matches. So look at his recent form and is not nearly as good.

Considering how we've struggled in front of goal, both in creating and putting away chances, and our miserable form this season, the boy's done good tbf. You don't often see a better ratio than that in the bottom third of the table.

You don't often see a £25,000 a week striker in the bottom 1/3 of the table tbf.

If we've "struggled in front of goal, putting away chances" then in what sense has the "boy done good"?

We've certainly not struggled in creating chances. In our last three home games we've had 54 shots, and scored none of them!
Had our Glenn finished a few of his 11 shots, we wouldn't be in the bottom third right now.

The team wouldn't be under-performing if Murray hadn't been so shit.

[maffff]

Chelsea will let Middlesbrough keep Bamford until the end of the season.

[janesdaddy]

Christmas has come early! It looks like we might be getting rid of some significant dead wood soon: Murray, Gunther (for two million!), the Pog. Now, if only we could shift Blackman and Akpan too...

[marcusopp]

Absolute rubbish.
Murray is clearly good enough, hense his prolific season for palace.
It's not just about having one good striker though.
If the tactics are dicking around with the ball at the back followed by a slow, predictable build up, then the forward isn't going to thrive.
Pacey wingers putting in decend crosses are how someone like Murray thrives, but we've not been playing that way.
I reckon Clarke will be tactically more direct, which could see an improvement in Murray's goal tally...