Bournemouth willing to let Murray leave on a free

[Hillian1]

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

I did.

But before we make any move for Murray I would hope we look at options and value.

 

[chaileyjem]

They won't stop then either.

At least the Elphick and Cook ones have dried up.

 

[beorhthelm]

are the Murray fanbois not the least bit worried that he hasn't really done anything in 3 years? he's not got the games for injury and... why else i dont know. yes, decent strike rate, but my concern would be if he doesn't click the anti-Murray side would be too quick to get on his case, not improving the situation. meanwhile the money could be put on other player with similar, or better recent track record who doesn't have baggage.

 

[Marshy]

I did.

But before we make any move for Murray I would hope we look at options and value.

Absolutely, a shed load of new potential signings are now available you would imagine who may be better long term options.... until we have confirmed interest in them tho... its just rumours.

 

[brightonrock]

This would only ever be a Bloom signing if it was short term (i.e. 1 year), or on a vastly reduced wage. Look at the signings we make - they're not 33yo players on 3-year, 30k p/week deals.

If we're going to be shelling out that sort of money, I'd want it to be on a player 7 or 8 years younger and coming into their prime, so there'd be resale value if it didn't work out. If he was crap or got injured early on there's no way another club would come in and match those wages, he'd sit there and bleed us dry. We'd be mugs to do it, no matter how carried away his little fanboys get EVERY. SINGLE. WINDOW.

IMHO, to be avoided.

 

[Guinness Boy]

are the Murray fanbois not the least bit worried that he hasn't really done anything in 3 years? he's not got the games for injury and... why else i dont know. yes, decent strike rate, but my concern would be if he doesn't click the anti-Murray side would be too quick to get on his case, not improving the situation. meanwhile the money could be put on other player with similar, or better recent track record who doesn't have baggage.

The fact that we even think that there are "Murray fan boys" and "antis" is another very good reason for not signing him. #together started off as a hopeful marketing tag but it's come to signify something much greater than that. Last thing we need is division in the stands when a highly paid sub comes on.

 

[Exile]

But having your top earner as a loan player coming off the bench ain't good for morale.

Like SIDWELL, you mean!?

 

[Marshy]

The fact that we even think that there are "Murray fan boys" and "antis" is another very good reason for not signing him. #together started off as a hopeful marketing tag but it's come to signify something much greater than that. Last thing we need is division in the stands when a highly paid sub comes on.

There were plenty that were very anti Zamora returning too though.....until he started smacking the goals in and winning games for us....

Murray is 32.... and not completely knackered like Bobby was when he rocked up.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Surely you take the wages and the transfer into consideration as a whole?

Murray £NIL transfer fee, £30K per week wages = £30K per week cost.

Baldock £2mill transfer fee on a 4-year deal = £10K per week over the life of the contract. Even at £15K per week salary he's costing the club £25K per week in total. I'd have Murray over Baldock any day of the week.

 

[GT49er]

yes, but he (Zamora) was the Messiah. Murray is just a disciple at best.

Absolutely!

 

[Icy Gull]

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)

You make a good point

 

[Marshy]

Surely you take the wages and the transfer into consideration as a whole?

Murray £NIL transfer fee, £30K per week wages = £30K per week cost.

Baldock £2mill transfer fee on a 4-year deal = £10K per week over the life of the contract. Even at £15K per week salary he's costing the club £25K per week in total. I'd have Murray over Baldock any day of the week.

Exactly hence the option of signing on fee's etc to keep players in a wage structure

 

[Se20]

Would walk back to Brighton ( well he does live there ) but he won't come cheap.
He was on £30 k with us, so he's surely on more at Bournemouth, and will want a big signing on fee I suspect.
You could do a lot worse ( Bamford )

 

[GT49er]

At least the Elphick and Cook ones have dried up.

Give 'em time!



Replacements for when Dunk goes, anyone........?

 

[Prince Monolulu]

Murray is not worth £20k p/w. Imho.

 

[The Stout Yeoman]

Barnes ?

 

[Marshy]

Murray is not worth £20k p/w. Imho.

How much do you think Bobby was on ?..... bet it wasnt far off that.

 

[Prince Monolulu]

How much do you think Bobby was on ?..... bet it wasnt far off that.

BZ scored a couple of important goals. No idea what he was on, possibly related to image rights/appearances? No idea, but personally I would want more over a complete season for that sort of wedge.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Like SIDWELL, you mean!?

Fair point.

 

[BensGrandad]

I would have him like a shot ! Bobby's replacement and use him in a similar way

That is the correct answer.