Bournemouth willing to let Murray leave on a free

[Exile]

I thought [MENTION=14905]symyjym[/MENTION] was talking about the failed loan deal. A parent club can always cover a proportion of the wages (e.g. the Bridge deal)

If Bournemouth are willing to let Murray go on a free wouldn't his new wages be up to his new club to negotiate with Glenn and his representatives?

They would, but if the new club were offering a PENNY less than his existing deal*, then he'd only agree to it, if Bournemouth were picking up the shortfall. Which they won't.

*Unless there is perhaps the sweetener of an additional year. He's getting on, though.

 

[TSB]

Good grief we're going to get Murray threads every transfer window until the bloke retires aren't we?

Welcome to my misery.

 

[Guinness Boy]

They would, but if the new club were offering a PENNY less than his existing deal*, then he'd only agree to it, if Bournemouth were picking up the shortfall. Which they won't.

*Unless there is perhaps the sweetener of an additional year. He's getting on, though.

Or he wanted to play regular football nearer to his Brighton home?

 

[Hamilton]

I'd have him, but I'm sure there are other options.

 

[Exile]

Or he wanted to play regular football nearer to his Brighton home?

You'd love that to be the clincher, wouldn't you, but I'd be pleasantly surprised. Its not as though he's a Brighton FAN, or as if he's had a long career at the top level, to have millions sat in the bank. Wherever he goes will be his final deal - he'll want a good one.

 

[Murray 17]

However, what we've built is an enviable TEAM built on good spirit and togetherness. One wrong cog in the wheel - i.e. Manu - would be a waste of cash.

Somebody I spoke to who has socialised with GM said he is a very nice, quiet guy. I think the idea that he is a disruptive, sulky individual may have been put about by a former club employee to justify letting him go on a free.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

So therefore he will be looking for a 3 year contract on 30k p/w wages and a huge signing on fee. That equates to £5m for a 33 year old footballer who hasnt been banging the goals in since the season Palace went up, hasn't even played regular football since then.

Still no thanks, Bournemouth can keep him, and before anyone thinks i am just not a fan of his, I was one of the ones singing his praises when plenty on here were slagging him for being lazy, i was absolutely gutted when we let him go, but his day has been and gone in my opinion.

Our scouting network scours all of Europe and far further afield too, do you really think for that sort of money we cant find somebody younger and probably better than Glenn Murray?
You will probably say why didn't we get them this season then? Maybe our budget didnt stretch to it after bringing in 9 new players last summer plus Skalak and Knockaert in January, perhaps we tried and couldnt get the players for one reason or another.

This year, as long as we can keep the players we have, our budget will predominantly go on Strikers, whole different scenario.

Murray/His Agent/Bournemouth will want another club to take over the remaining 2 years of his contract at 30k a week, it's unlikely he'll get any singing on fee. As I said the other alternative is Bournemouth have to cover he shortfall in wages if he moves to another club and they are not willing to take over his existing contract. If that is the case Bournemouth would have to negotiate with Murray on compensation for the remainder of that contract. If I was Murray, and considering the way Howe has treated him, I'd be looking for a full payout for Bournemouth for wages as a massive **** you to Howe.

Having said that if we were to announce we'd signed Murray for 2 years for 1.5 million and he'd be on 15k a week, the total outlay over the 2 years would be roughly the same though but it seems a lot better deal for us written down like that.

I have a feeling that Bournemouth won't agree his transfer for anything other than a total take over of his contract though

 

[Giraffe]

I'd have him, but I'm sure there are other options.

This, because he would do a job, but would you want him to be the only striker signing? no.

Ultimately it comes down to budget. If we sign onr or decent strikers and Murray is available and the budget covers it then why not. Would do a similar job to Bobby earlier in the season but probably for more games.

 

[grummitts gloves]

Heard Fulham were interested. They're mug enough to pay over the top wages. We aren't.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Too old fvck off. And Soprano - 2009 just called, it wants its joke back.

 

[Marshy]

What is it with you and Murray?

Err that hes better than our strikers by miles, we need 2 new ones.
Still lives in Brighton.
And its common klnowledge we tried last season.
We were clearly interested, and no if the headline is to be believed is free.....

What is your problem with Murray.... and please dont say attitude.... there was nothing wrong with his

 

[GT49er]

Good grief we're going to get Murray threads every transfer window until the bloke retires aren't we?

They won't stop then either.

 

[Hillian1]

Not for me Clive.

 

[Marshy]

Why would he accept £500K less than he'd get on his present contract?

why.... because he gets a lump sum up front ?
He wants to play for us ?
He likes living in Brighton ?
Worth a try isnt it, to keep withion our wage scale ?

 

[Eeyore]

This, because he would do a job, but would you want him to be the only striker signing? no.

Ultimately it comes down to budget. If we sign onr or decent strikers and Murray is available and the budget covers it then why not. Would do a similar job to Bobby earlier in the season but probably for more games.

I'd take him as a 'Bobby' replacement. Not the main striker signing. In fact, I think that could turn out to be a rather astute move.

 

[James Bond's body double]

Err that hes better than our strikers by miles, we need 2 new ones.
Still lives in Brighton.
And its common klnowledge we tried last season.
We were clearly interested, and no if the headline is to be believed is free.....

What is your problem with Murray.... and please dont say attitude.... there was nothing wrong with his

Nothing I would have him back, you seem to be obsessed though that's all.

He ticks lots of boxes but , sure there are others that do also.

 

[Marshy]

Not for me Clive.

you probably said the same about Bobby ;-)

And Murray is 3 years younger and a far better player at present. Would certainly share the workload with Hemed who we flogged to death this season

 

[Chinman3000]

Reluctant to let him leave. I reckon we might be hard pressed to raise the £20m and he may prefer Spurs or West Ham.

Yep mis-read that. My bad.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Somebody I spoke to who has socialised with GM said he is a very nice, quiet guy. I think the idea that he is a disruptive, sulky individual may have been put about by a former club employee to justify letting him go on a free.

It's not just character though. I don't doubt he's a nice guy, tallies with what I've heard too. But having your top earner as a loan player coming off the bench ain't good for morale. We need to look at the failed Murray deal in comparison to the likes of deals for Skalak and Knockaert, probably the two best value deals of the window and ones that might not have been done had we had to pay 100% of Murray's wages (FFP etc)

 

[Marshy]

Nothing I would have him back, you seem to be obsessed though that all.

He ticks lots of boxes but , sure there are others out there that do also.

Im not obsessed at all, if we had shown no interest previously then he would be just another name in the mix. But we have shown interest.
And i dont mind commenting and getting involved in chat and discussion on fact rather than specualtion.
Much like Vydra we have shown interest....

CH will have the final say clearly, if he goes another route then brilliant, until then Murray and Vydra are the 2 players we have shown interest in very recently, and we all know we are in the market for 2 stirkers.