The Golden Rule

[Revolution]

For me this loses credibility in the second sentence where there is the, at best, questionable assertion that the club were under no pressure to sell. The player wanting to leave constitutes pressure.

Fine. I know I'm not going to convince you. We could sell the entire first XI and you'd be relaxed about it.

It is very easy to refuse. Just say no. Everton did. WBA did. Fulham did.

It's only pressure if you fold at the first sign of an agent like we usually do.

 

[secretchief]

Phipps said he did.

I did not know.

 

[Grecian2000]

For me this loses credibility in the second sentence where there is the, at best, questionable assertion that the club were under no pressure to sell. The player wanting to leave constitutes pressure.

and him being about 15% through a three year contract is enough to relieve any pressure.

 

[Revolution]

I did not know.

You're obviously not following him on Facebook or twitter or wherever else he goes to peddle the panem et circenses.

Remember-

If a United player requests a transfer, we cannot stand in his way.

But if we approach a club with an offer, we cannot force them to sell as it's all very complicated.

 

[Grecian2000]

If you retain him then there is a significant chance that his performance levels will drop - or in a worst case scenario he will outright refuse to play - and his value as a player and as an asset will decrease significantly.

Just as a matter of interest who are these players that have refused to play under contract?

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Fine. I know I'm not going to convince you. We could sell the entire first XI and you'd be relaxed about it.

It is very easy to refuse. Just say no. Everton did. WBA did. Fulham did.

It's only pressure if you fold at the first sign of an agent like we usually do.

So should we have gone for a Berahinho type stand off which is doing no-one any favours, least of all WBA ?

We are League 1, Murphy wanted to go and we got a decent price, simple as. Said it before but everyone South of Man City and Chelsea (League position wise) is a selling club if that's the phrase people want to use.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Fine. I know I'm not going to convince you. We could sell the entire first XI and you'd be relaxed about it.

It is very easy to refuse. Just say no. Everton did. WBA did. Fulham did.

It's only pressure if you fold at the first sign of an agent like we usually do.

The first part of this post is a straw man, nonsense, *and* personal. This, again, has to undermine the credibility of anything that follows.

OP was that we were under no pressure. I think this is demonstrably just plain wrong.

The question of whether we could have refused is a different one. Any refusal has consequences. In this case it seems pretty clear that the consequences would have been adverse for the club and they were right to sell.

In fact it's hard to see how they could have conducted the whole operation any better.

The last sentence just seems to be confused.

 

[Revolution]

So should we have gone for a Berahinho type stand off which is doing no-one any favours, least of all WBA ?

We are League 1, Murphy wanted to go and we got a decent price, simple as. Said it before but everyone South of Man City and Chelsea (League position wise) is a selling club if that's the phrase people want to use.

What stand off? You think Murphy would have behaved like that infant because we wouldn't let him go to Brighton? Please.

Doesn't anyone have any backbone?

And spare me the everyone's a sellin club bit. They are if it's silly money or they need the money. The club expressly said it was neither scenario.

 

[Rodders]

Just as a matter of interest who are these players that have refused to play under contract?

No doubt Berahinho will be quoted but that is genuinely the first instance I can remember since Van Hooijdonk in 1997.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Just as a matter of interest who are these players that have refused to play under contract?

That was not the assertion in the post.

To address this related but separate question isn't Berahinho the current and most public example?

 

[Revolution]

The first part of this post is a straw man, nonsense, *and* personal. This, again, has to undermine the credibility of anything that follows.

OP was that we were under no pressure. I think this is demonstrably just plain wrong.

The question of whether we could have refused is a different one. Any refusal has consequences. In this case it seems pretty clear that the consequences would have been adverse for the club and they were right to sell.

In fact it's hard to see how they could have conducted the whole operation any better.

The last sentence just seems to be confused.

Thanks for your forensic analysis. It's not a straw man. My perception is that you will defend anything the club does irrespective of what others may think of it.

I'm interested that you regard the weakening of the squad, given there are no new faces, as something that can't have gone any better.

Feel free to disect this post too but don't expect a response.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

and him being about 15% through a three year contract is enough to relieve any pressure.

This increases his value as an asset and is one of the reasons the board should be praised for their conduct.on the deal.

How does a player being under contract relieve pressure?

 

[Revolution]

This increases his value as an asset and is one of the reasons the board should be praised for their conduct.on the deal.

How does a player being under contract relieve pressure?

He has no contractual right to a transfer. The decision to let him go is a unilateral one.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Thanks for your forensic analysis. It's not a straw man. My perception is that you will defend anything the club does irrespective of what others may think of it.

I'm interested that you regard the weakening of the squad, given there are no new faces, as something that can't have gone any better.

Feel free to disect this post too but don't expect a response.

That is pretty much textbook straw man.

We put Murphy on a long term contract. He expressed a desire to leave.

Either he stays with the sigificant chance that he will decreases in value both as a player and as a financial asset, or we seek to maximise the possible return - a course of action aided by the contract.

The second course of action is clearly in the best interests of the club.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

He has no contractual right to a transfer. The decision to let him go is a unilateral one.

Who's saying that he does have such a right? Another straw man.

 

[Pinchy]

Just as a matter of interest who are these players that have refused to play under contract?

I've got suntan playing golf today, Gaffer. I'm unwell and can't play. Here's my sick note.....

 

[Revolution]

Who's saying that he does have such a right? Another straw man.

Jesus wept.

Murphy can ask for a transfer. He cannot force one through against the clubs will. If, as they said, they did not need to sell for financial reasons, they had a free choice as to whether to grant his request it not. Hence no pressure on the club.

 

[Pinchy]

That is pretty much textbook straw man.

We put Murphy on a long term contract. He expressed a desire to leave.

Either he stays with the sigificant chance that he will decreases in value both as a player and as a financial asset, or we seek to maximise the possible return - a course of action aided by the contract.

The second course of action is clearly in the best interests of the club.

United were absolutely right to sell Murphy. It was a great deal. I predict Brighton will be selling him at a loss of about a million pounds before his contract expires.

The team might not be stronger without him right now (though it's doing a pretty good impression) but it will be by the end of the season (much sooner in all likelihood) and that's what matters.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Jesus wept.

Murphy can ask for a transfer. He cannot force one through against the clubs will. If, as they said, they did not need to sell for financial reasons, they had a free choice as to whether to grant his request it not. Hence no pressure on the club.

Jesus wept indeed.

As I thought was pretty clear from several posts above the pressure does not come from having to sell due tonsome non-existent clause, but from the possible/likely diminution in the value of the asset in terms of playing strength or financial worth or both.

 

[Revolution]

Jesus wept indeed.

As I thought was pretty clear from several posts above the pressure does not come from having to sell due tonsome non-existent clause, but from the possible/likely diminution in the value of the asset in terms of playing strength or financial worth or both.

Financial worth was irrelevant. Phipps said it did not enter into the equation.

I think your speculation that he would stop playing if refused a transfer is fanciful.

Hence no pressure.

I really am done with this thread.

 

[Mustela Putorius Furo]

Exactly. Isn't that the normal structure of a loan?

Do loaning clubs ever pay a proportion of the wages of a player who they have loaned out.

I imagine it's possible, but highly unusual - maybe with a young player, or someone returning from injury getting match time.

No, it's more usual these days for the loaning club to still pick up a portion of the wages of players they send out. Loan signings have changed considerably since the days when it automatically meant the borrowing club picked up the full cost.

The disparity in wage levels across the league is now so great that Prem/champ clubs simply wouldn't be able to loan out players to lower league clubs if they insisted the borrowing club picked up all the wages. It suits clubs like Chelsea to still pay 15k of the 20k a week wage of a 20 year old ,unproven, prospect and have them playing at a lower level to get competitive experience, and because the borrowing club is only paying a fraction, they're willing to take the kid on for a while to improve what they've got.

Some loan deals between clubs at the same level (or equivalent league if into another country) now often includes a "loan fee" paid by the borrowing club - like a fractional transfer fee... another new-fangled twist on loans as well as slicing up the wage costs - it's probably the case that in those circumstances they do pay the full wage themselves.

These deals are very different these days. I suspect we aren't paying the full wages of anyone we've got on loan. And why should we, when the loaning club can recall the player and reap the benefit in performance or transfer fee of their obvious "improvement" at BDTBL?

 

[Pinchy]

Didn't a club agree a £2m loan fee in yesterday's transfer business?

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Financial worth was irrelevant. Phipps said it did not enter into the equation.

I think your speculation that he would stop playing if refused a transfer is fanciful.

Hence no pressure.

I really am done with this thread.

The assertion was not that he would stop playing (a hat trick of straw men ;-)) but that his playing strength would diminish.

Again this seems blindingly obvious: he expresses a desire to leave, he is kept - by definition - against his will, this is likely to affect his motivation and his performance.

His value decreases as a player and as a financial asset. Pressure.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

No, it's more usual these days for the loaning club to still pick up a portion of the wages of players they send out. Loan signings have changed considerably since the days when it automatically meant the borrowing club picked up the full cost.

The disparity in wage levels across the league is now so great that Prem/champ clubs simply wouldn't be able to loan out players to lower league clubs if they insisted the borrowing club picked up all the wages. It suits clubs like Chelsea to still pay 15k of the 20k a week wage of a 20 year old ,unproven, prospect and have them playing at a lower level to get competitive experience, and because the borrowing club is only paying a fraction, they're willing to take the kid on for a while to improve what they've got.

Some loan deals between clubs at the same level (or equivalent league if into another country) now often includes a "loan fee" paid by the borrowing club - like a fractional transfer fee... another new-fangled twist on loans as well as slicing up the wage costs - it's probably the case that in those circumstances they do pay the full wage themselves.

These deals are very different these days. I suspect we aren't paying the full wages of anyone we've got on loan. And why should we, when the loaning club can recall the player and reap the benefit in performance or transfer fee of their obvious "improvement" at BDTBL?

Makes sense. Thanks.

 

[itsinyerblood]

So should we have gone for a Berahinho type stand off which is doing no-one any favours, least of all WBA ?

We are League 1, Murphy wanted to go and we got a decent price, simple as. Said it before but everyone South of Man City and Chelsea (League position wise) is a selling club if that's the phrase people want to use.

I've read the many posts on this matter attentively. I've attempted to suspend whatever viewpoint I hold in order to digest the various arguments and counter arguments that have been expressed.

What I've read from the 'the only consequence is to sell' camp is that once a player submits a transfer request there's no alternative than to let him go. If not then his price will drop and his form will suffer.....maybe, maybe not. Murphy, I believe, had at least 2 seasons remaining on his agreement with the club. He was generally regarded as one of the best, if not the best player at the club. Assume we declined to show interest in selling him now, what would be in his interest? To play poorly? To prejudice any chance of another club being interested in a player whose form isn't that good? As we entered this season with the club's stance, as expressed by it's manager, Nigel Adkins, being that we weren't going to sell our best players, the news shortly after this statement that Murphy was to be sold was naturally met with displeasure by some of it's supporters. Not surprising really.....but continuing with the timescales surrounding this. A few months earlier Murphy commits to a new contract, saying he and his family are happy at the club and the area. Fast forward and these comments have been neatly swept away never to be mentioned again. Funny how a thought through commitment can change so rapidly? Coincidence?

So far I've read one set of views from the pro-selling camp, that in attempting to retain Murphy his form might suffer and that it would be detrimental to the club and any potential fee they might receive. That's one scenario. Another might be that with a declared opinion from within the club, again by it's manager, that promotion was our priority this season, attempting to persuade Murphy to stay for one more season, and that Murphy will have been regarded as central to that promotion push, would have been another scenario. If, at the end of that season, promotion hadn't been achieved then Murphy would be allowed to leave with the club's blessing. Of course this represents a gamble, but should Murphy have bitten the bullet, got his head down, and contributed to this push for promotion, then perhaps a gamble worth taking. If he was sensible enough to have played well and other teams were interested in his form, form displayed over more than a couple of seasons, then a dutch auction may have arisen and the question of Murphy's value would be an altogether different question.

So much that's written about this now is with hindsight acting in its favour. For me, I'll trust in Adkins to know what's best for the club and it's fortunes this season. But to suggest that the club had no alternative where Murphy was concerned is incorrect at best. The problem as I see it is that each opposing post becomes a simple example of 'You're wrong...no, you're wrong', and as a result an opposing opinion is dismissed without consideration for any positives contained within that position.

 

[Lord Bos of Eckington.]

United were absolutely right to sell Murphy. It was a great deal. I predict Brighton will be selling him at a loss of about a million pounds before his contract expires.

The team might not be stronger without him right now (though it's doing a pretty good impression) but it will be by the end of the season (much sooner in all likelihood) and that's what matters.

Selling Murphy IMO and the fee he went for , was good business for the Blades . Flatter to Decieve , comes to mind , and it wont be long , before Brighton realise , they have had there leg lifted . Not good news for there manager or scouts , who have been watching , and recomended him ( DVD watching no doubt in cup ties )

Adkins is balancing the side and the books , and on this one , Blades 1 Brighton 0.

Players WILL come in who are better and give more .

UTB

 

[SandyMcBlade]

2013 - McDonald.
2014 - Maguire.
2015 - Murphy...
What ever the reason in today's game there's not a dam thing you can do about it when teams like Man U can pay £30 odd million for a young lad who's scored about 16 goals, it's all gone money mad....

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

As far as I'm concerned as soon as a player wants to leave you get rid. Adkins has been at pains to point out at every opportunity that it's one United all pulling the same way and he's right. If Murphy didn't want to be a part of that then you try and get the best deal for the club.

Time will tell whether we did but as good as he was at times (and yes, we haven't got a replacement) we didn't get a consistent season out of him and it's League 1 we're talking about.

 

[robbiez666]

The problem the Board and club have is a chequered history of 'excuses' and letting the fans down. Whether everything was done to sign players or not, it's hard not to at least be suspicious given the amount of nonsense we've been fed over the years.

 

[Lord Bos of Eckington.]

The problem the Board and club have is a chequered history of 'excuses' and letting the fans down. Whether everything was done to sign players or not, it's hard not to at least be suspicious given the amount of nonsense we've been fed over the years.

In the past , perhaps certain manager have towed the line and been puppets to the board . I just cannot see this being the case with Adkins . He has too much respect in the game , and nothing to gain.

Ok McCabe and Co have not helped themselves in the past , but we are now not dealing with a second rate manager . If truth be known , we have a manager who could take us or leave us , if fed with bull shit or broken promises . This time we have not be let down , and will be not intentionally let down in the future . We have to put all this transfer business into perspective . Adkins knows what he wants and he will get it .

Transfer deadline day is a circus , and i am glad that we have not brought someone in second rate , high fee , just to pacify us fans,

The football world has gone mad , and thank the lord , the vast majority of blades fans have some sense.

UTB