Should we sign Murray permanently?

[Tommio]

Personally I don't think Murray has played well enough for us, plus he's not the sort of player we need. I'd much rather us sign someone with plenty of pace and someone younger. What does everyone else think?

[maffff]

Reasonable goal return, leads the line, links up well with Cox, age and cost a factor against. I'd be happy if he stayed but if he doesn't then only if we get someone else in. Can't see Pog being the player we need, but Clarke needs to look over his squad.

[JordCot]

All depends on money, if it is 1 mil and we would still pass FFP then yes, anymore than that seems too big an expense for a guy with realistically no resale at his age

[Handsome Man]

Only if he is happy with a sensible length of contract, which he won't be, so no. Spend our millions on more your players like Blackman, who have a resale value.

[North Somerset Royal]

He is not that good plus he still lives in Brighton and wants to go back to Palace so no we should not.

[paultheroyal]

Only if he is happy with a sensible length of contract, which he won't be, so no. Spend our millions on more your players like Blackman, who have a resale value.

What, like 50p?

[Struggle Pig]

I have voted "No". Not because I think there is better available, I don't, I think Murray is the best strike we can buy for that amount of money. In fact we could probably spend a bit more money and not end up with a striker as good as Murray.

I have voted "No" because I want to ensure we are definitely below the FFP target, Murray is 31 and he is more than likely on higher wages.

At this point I would like to break in a few younger strikers Tanner/Samuels and put the money and wages that would have gone on Murray, into a younger more promising striker in the summer transfer window.

[blueroyals]

Logically:

The season is a statistical write-off. Why spend money (and risk FFP breach) on an aging striker on high wages when we could give the younger players a try. Then strengthen in the summer if necessary.

[Snowball]

If (IF IF IF) someone can step-up and we avoid relegation, then fine, we can probably afford to say no,
because the nay-suers are right and (probably) Murray is only good for the rest of this season and next.

But ATM we really do miss a serious threat a la Doyle, Kitson, Long, and though I like Cox, we simply don't have a player
who constantly threatens the opposition defence.

Years back I remember the Everton defenders talking about our front two, how they never gave them a second's respite.

We need that threat.

Blackman, Cox, HRK, Mackie are NOT that threat, however good they may be in support.


I guess it depends on your attitude. Bring in a kid, get relegated, win League 1?

Or make sure you stay up and rebuild while you are IN The Championship.

Murray will keep us up.


For me it's the second case, especially if we can get 2.5 seasons out of Murray.

[Meoci71]

Looking at alternatives to Murray, with the cash not used on him, lower league options > possibly Chesterfield's Eoin Doyle, he's had a fantastic start to the season with 18 goals in league 1, plus the added bonuses of being Irish, Ginger and having that name "Doyle", probably attainable between 500k and 1 million squid

[From Despair To Where?]

If (IF IF IF) someone can step-up and we avoid relegation, then fine, we can probably afford to say no,
because the nay-suers are right and (probably) Murray is only good for the rest of this season and next.

But ATM we really do miss a serious threat a la Doyle, Kitson, Long, and though I like Cox, we simply don't have a player
who constantly threatens the opposition defence.

Years back I remember the Everton defenders talking about our front two, how they never gave them a second's respite.

We need that threat.

Blackman, Cox, HRK, Mackie are NOT that threat, however good they may be in support.


I guess it depends on your attitude. Bring in a kid, get relegated, win League 1?

Or make sure you stay up and rebuild while you are IN The Championship.

Murray will keep us up.


For me it's the second case, especially if we can get 2.5 seasons out of Murray.

The obvious flaw in your thinking is that you can't rebuild with a transfer embargo in place which is a very real possibility if we sign Murray permenantly without offloading another high earner first.

Realistically, we are looking at Drenthe (only Wednesday want him and they can't afford him), Pog (no one who could afford him would want him) or Guthrie (hardly played all season and out of conttact in 6 mnths. Who'd buy him now?)

This FFP issue seems to be the one thing that the pro Murray posters consistantly ignore. Bottom line, if the consequences of signing him are too great, we won't be signing him. If there's even the slightest doubt about FFP, we won't be signing him. Whether he is a good enough player or not is irrelevant.

[fruits]

He´s too old.
He doesn´t want to be at Reading.
Unless we can get him for a million , it could lead to problems with finances.
If we sell Drenthe, Pog,Guthrie, Akpan,Blackman and a few others in January ,then sign Murray.
Try Cooper for the last 20 minutes as a forward, tiring defenders seeing him come on will be terrified.

Just wish we could get rid of a lot of deadwood earning big money, the Mad Russian has a lot to answer for.

[teignmouth hoops]

yes,as long as we can get him for around the £1m. He leads the line very well holds the ball up well,and brings others into the game. He also jumps well and is a pain to mark,unlike our other two number 9s, pog n hrk

[Hoop Blah]

This FFP issue seems to be the one thing that the pro Murray posters consistantly ignore. Bottom line, if the consequences of signing him are too great, we won't be signing him. If there's even the slightest doubt about FFP, we won't be signing him. Whether he is a good enough player or not is irrelevant.

The club have made it clear that they're not going to break the FFP regulations. They've also made it clear that there is a form of deal in place for Murray as part of the loan agreement and that they hope to be in a position to sign him (some room for negotiation within that if Murray's quotes are anything to go by).

The second is subject to the first and so you'd have to assume that us getting him in doesn't break FFP.

[Ian Royal]

This FFP issue seems to be the one thing that the pro Murray posters consistantly ignore. Bottom line, if the consequences of signing him are too great, we won't be signing him. If there's even the slightest doubt about FFP, we won't be signing him. Whether he is a good enough player or not is irrelevant.

The club have made it clear that they're not going to break the FFP regulations. They've also made it clear that there is a form of deal in place for Murray as part of the loan agreement and that they hope to be in a position to sign him (some room for negotiation within that if Murray's quotes are anything to go by).

The second is subject to the first and so you'd have to assume that us getting him in doesn't break FFP.

This. Very obviously this.

[From Despair To Where?]

But, as i pointed out before, that was based on where we were in August. Since then, revenue has been down by in the region of the sum of 2,000 ticket and consession sales per game, a conservative estimate of £50,000 per game. If we are really sailing as close to the wind as we are being told we are, that's between £500,000 and £1m. for the season. Add to that the cost of sacking Adkins and suddenly there's a Glenn Murray sized hole in the budget

If we can't afford him, i don't want him.

[Sanguine]

From an FFP perspective, wouldn't any transfer fee be spread over the course of his contract?

As HB said, this has already been considered when the loan deal was made - you're probably look at a £400k 'hit' in the next 12 months, on the basis of a £1m fee.

[From Despair To Where?]

But again, if turnover is down and we've had one off costs from sacking Adkins, what effect does that have on the budget as it stood in August? Won't the budget have to be adjusted to take this into accont? The owners can only sink so much money in

[YateleyRoyal]

Can someone highlight to me where he's said he doesn't want to stay?

[Hoop Blah]

But again, if turnover is down and we've had one off costs from sacking Adkins, what effect does that have on the budget as it stood in August? Won't the budget have to be adjusted to take this into accont? The owners can only sink so much money in

I'd imagine the match income was largely forecasted and budgeted for to be honest.

The pay off for Adkins and Co maybe not though. That may have an impact on the deals affordability yes. We really can't know how close we are to the FFP thresholds and how much the Murray deal has been factored in or not so I'd just take it as read that any opinion based on him staying or not is based on it being within our budget.