Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Murray scores AGAIN for Reading ... number 5



goldstone

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
7,115
Did I hear a couple of people on here ask why WE didn't get him on loan? Sounds like a sensible enough question .... and one to which it would be interesting to hear an answer from the club.
 






Springal

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2005
23,830
GOSBTS
Or Palace had no intention of letting him go here?
 


Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster
Jul 5, 2003
72,015
here's a thought: maybe he may not have wanted to come back here?

Here's another thought, he is WAY better than anyone we have got and we can't afford quality strikers. It's that old FFP chestnut ......probably.
 










Tony Meolas Loan Spell

Slut Faced Whores
Jul 15, 2004
18,067
Vamanos Pest
Im sure we could have struck a deal after all most of the time time the loaning club pays the wages or the majority Bridge, Ward etc.

Gotta be honest the biggest mistake of the amex eras are letting him go then not getting him back.
 




Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 15, 2008
31,854
Brighton
Im sure we could have struck a deal after all most of the time time the loaning club pays the wages or the majority Bridge, Ward etc.

Gotta be honest the biggest mistake of the amex eras are letting him go then not getting him back.

Last season Southampton refused to loan Billy Sharp out unless the team that took him was willing to pay all of his wages. I was watching sunday supplement this morning and they mentioned one Palace player that went out on loan (I didn't catch which one) cost a six figure fee to take on loan. There is an effort from loaning clubs to pay less of the wages, we lucked out with Bridge (or perhaps it was great bargaining by whoever was head of player recruitment at the time), but loan players aren't necessarily that much cheaper than buying players, expecially in the FFP era where clubs don't want a player on their wage bill if he is playing for another team.
 


Dec 29, 2011
8,024
Last season Southampton refused to loan Billy Sharp out unless the team that took him was willing to pay all of his wages. I was watching sunday supplement this morning and they mentioned one Palace player that went out on loan (I didn't catch which one) cost a six figure fee to take on loan. There is an effort from loaning clubs to pay less of the wages, we lucked out with Bridge (or perhaps it was great bargaining by whoever was head of player recruitment at the time), but loan players aren't necessarily that much cheaper than buying players, expecially in the FFP era where clubs don't want a player on their wage bill if he is playing for another team.

On the other hand if we'd taken agustien/Harley/Toko on loan we wouldn't have had to pay their whole contracts when we realised they were shit. It can work both ways (as we see with Gardener).
 


Guy Fawkes

The voice of treason
Sep 29, 2007
8,197
On the other hand if we'd taken agustien/Harley/Toko on loan we wouldn't have had to pay their whole contracts when we realised they were shit. It can work both ways (as we see with Gardener).

So should we have taken the likes of Ulloa, Buckley, etc on loan in case they didn't work out?

That way, if they did well on loan here, the selling club can increase their transfer fee demand and other clubs can hijack the move.

All transfers are a gamble, some work and some don't
 






edna krabappel

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
47,221
Did I hear a couple of people on here ask why WE didn't get him on loan? Sounds like a sensible enough question .... and one to which it would be interesting to hear an answer from the club.

Would you mind just checking for us how many games Reading have won in that period? Cheers.
 


edna krabappel

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
47,221
Im sure we could have struck a deal after all most of the time time the loaning club pays the wages or the majority Bridge, Ward etc.

Gotta be honest the biggest mistake of the amex eras are letting him go then not getting him back.

I can perfectly well grasp why City or the other top clubs would pay a proportion of the wages of a loan player, for the sake of getting him out playing games.

I'm less convinced that a smaller club like Palace would cheerfully pay part of Glenn Murray's £22k (reported) per week, simply so that he can get a few games for the Albion, not least when a club like Reading are waiting in the wings, offering to pay the full amount thanks to their Premier League Relegation Reward Windfall.
 




BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Was it not reported in the press that we were in talks about him but our valuation and that of CPFC were miles apart ? Then somebody, supposedly ITK, said on here that he would never come back all the time TB was chairman, which in effect is likely to be never, as I am sure TB will be chairman longer than GM is a player.
 




Vegas Seagull

New member
Jul 10, 2009
7,782
Was it not reported in the press that we were in talks about him but our valuation and that of CPFC were miles apart ? Then somebody, supposedly ITK, said on here that he would never come back all the time TB was chairman, which in effect is likely to be never, as I am sure TB will be chairman longer than GM is a player.

He wanted out every summer, which is what TB and I remember, gets far too easy a ride on here
 








brightn'ove

cringe
Apr 12, 2011
9,137
London
Why do we only ever want (new/old) players who have played for us before ?

I think in this case it doesn't matter that he is an ex Albion player. He was an available (on loan) proven championship striker who possesses a multitude of skills that our current strike force do not. We missed out. Again.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here