CONFIRMED Jamie Murphy sold to Brighton & Hove Albion

[Darthblade]

Jims going to have a buy time tomorrow. I sit just behind the box. Any requests?

IF we sell Murphy for any less than £3million, I would like you to respectfully and calmly tell Jim ..... "nothing has changed Jim .... the Board of SUFC is, and has been in all of my lifetime a set of incompetent, no mark, brainless, morons who know nothing about football and couldn't run a football club if their lives depended upon it."

You can follow on to suggest to him that when we fail miserably to creep into the play-off places this season, he should pull on his tin helmet and scuttle back to the US or the UAE or wherever he came from because the backlash from the long suffering fans who have supported this Club more than this Board could have dared to hope, is likely to be significant.

If you sell your best players and replace them with dross ...... well, that's why we are here ......its really not rocket science is it ??
UTB & FTP

 

[Bladesince59]

£2.2 rates him pretty much the same as Harry.

I would probably take the money - but there again, we always do. And therein has been our problem since I first went to BDTBL in 1960. Nothing ever changes. Sell the good stuff and collect shit.

 

[Revolution]

Personally, I'd value Murphy objectively at £1.5m, tops. For money like £2.5m, you'd need to be looking at a player who dominates every game they play in, in this league, no matter how many people are marking them.
While I'd put him at £1.5m, the cost of losing him is far greater, and one not worth considering. Without resorting to histrionics, I do believe we can say this season is written off, save Adkins playing a blinder in the next few weeks.

Our best player gone, injuries and no defenders. Yes, another wasted year is on the cards.

 

[itsinyerblood]

Personally, I'd value Murphy objectively at £1.5m, tops. For money like £2.5m, you'd need to be looking at a player who dominates every game they play in, in this league, no matter how many people are marking them.
While I'd put him at £1.5m, the cost of losing him is far greater, and one not worth considering. Without resorting to histrionics, I do believe we can say this season is written off, save Adkins playing a blinder in the next few weeks.

I was being objective, and you don't need to 'dominate' week in week out to attain a higher price tag than the one quoted. You just need to show that you can produce against superior opposition when called upon.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

The post I answered was £2.2M.............and at that, then it sounds a good deal.

Your £1.5M post is speculation.

I could also speculate that he has a release clause of £2.2M (as a lot of players do now) that ALLOWS clubs to talk to him and it has therefore been triggered. As a club we may not have an option other than to let Brighton talk to the player.

No one really knows the full story and as of yet he hasn't signed.

UTB

I know it's speculation - so is the £2.2m. I was simply trying to gauge whether you would still consider that a good deal.

For the record, I would still view selling at £2.2m as a bad deal for us.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

Yes, you can certainly say that about the sales of our best players since Beattie onwards. The policy has worked like a charm!

you might be correct - ever considered that there might be a release clause at £2.2M and as a club we can do nothing about it.

UTB

 

[Worksop II]

If they have offered £1-75 million we have to take. it that's a good deal for use he,s not that good that he can't be replaced

In Blades speak, his replacement is already at the Club, Martyn Woolford = Free

 

[LoughboroBlade]

£2.2 rates him pretty much the same as Harry.

Nonsense - Harry's contract had 10 months left, not 34.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

I know it's speculation - so is the £2.2m. I was simply trying to gauge whether you would still consider that a good deal.

For the record, I would still view selling at £2.2m as a bad deal for us.

The price is to a degree immaterial - if there is a release clause at £1M agreed with the club then we are duty bound to honour it.

Everyone is speculating that the the club is culpable - we may have no choice...............

UTB

 

[crucialkneeligaman]

2-2.5 million is a great price for him. Won't be too bothered as long as we have somebody lined up to replace him.

Already here Weare, Woolford

 

[OllyBlade]

agree 100% on that - we won't be popular and wouldn't like to see him go but sometimes these things, however unpopular, will work out for the best in the long run.

UTB

I'm sorry but we have proven time and time again that we don't spend money (if the manager sees any) from these kind of sales at all well. Nor do we have chance to. We always do this as the end of the window approaches, and other teams know we have money. You have to hold on to quality if you have it, it's not always a case of what a player is worth even being relevant. Example from a higher level would be Bale or Suarez. If you have a player that lifts the whole team that is next to priceless. Murphy does that, or at least does that enough times to win us a lot of points.

Adkins himself, before making the stupid committment to not selling Murphy, pointed out how many of our assists and goals last season were a result of Murphy.

In the long run, decisions to sell good players leads to results like a 4-0 loss away at Gillingham in our 5th consecutive season in League One. Because, funnily enough, selling good players leads to the team being less good.

 

[Blade58]

I would consider £2.2m a fair deal for Murphy

The issue for me would be not the fee, but whether NA gets to see it all. If he does then perhaps we will end up stronger overall. If he doesn't, then we are back on the road to be being royally fked

 

[Kevincarterversion2.0]

We had a choice about release clauses when negotiating the contract. But I know players are reluctant to sign these days without them.

 

[Bladesince59]

If we sell Murphy it would be a joke , best attacking player we have at the club

Only....

 

[Worksop II]

to be being royally fked

Look behind you, and no you aint gonna get any money

 

[Grecian2000]

The price is to a degree immaterial - if there is a release clause at £1M agreed with the club then we are duty bound to honour it.

Everyone is speculating that the the club is culpable - we may have no choice...............

UTB

If we let him sign a contract on those terms AFTER McDonald, when he was already under contract anyway then the club is more than culpable it's fucking negligent.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

I admire your optimism, but selling our better players in the past (McDonald, Harry and others) hasnt really worked out so well...

Wouldn't like to lose Murphy, but up to now, no one has mentioned that the club may have no option as Brighton may have triggered a release clause.

If it's £2.2M then that is what the club/Murphy/his agent wrote into the contract. I would think ANY player has a release clause at a certain figure - it is what an agent is paid to do.

Everyone is blaming the club when we may not have an option.

I am only defending the club when everyone seems to be rubbishing it.

We don't know anything.

UTB

 

[LoughboroBlade]

The price is to a degree immaterial - if there is a release clause at £1M agreed with the club then we are duty bound to honour it.

And if this was an inherited deal I'd agree with you.

He signed his new deal in January of this year. Any clauses agreed by the current regime make them absolutely culpable if he's undersold.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

If we let him sign a contract on those terms AFTER McDonald, when he was already under contract anyway then the club is more than culpable it's fucking negligent.

He may have ONLY signed a new contract with a release clause.

I don't know - do you?

All I am writing is - the club may not have an option - it is what players and agents do these days

UTB

 

[Barney]

We shouldn't conduct our transfer business whilst dwelling on how selling players hasn't worked out in the past.

If the price is right i.e we rip them off, then the potential is there for Adkins to go out and buy a better player.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

And if this was an inherited deal I'd agree with you.

He signed his new deal in January of this year. Any clauses agreed by the current regime make them absolutely culpable if he's undersold.

But why is everyone speculating that it is a good/bad deal?

Players and agents hold the whip hand, epecially when a club offers a new contract. I would expect a release clause.

I am not happy at him going, but every player has his price and if that is what was agreed then so be it. The release clause could have been £4M, but then the agent would have arranged a bigger weekly wage - that is how these things work.

UTB

 

[Blade56]

He's going nowhere. If it was on he would have gone by now so he could play tomorrow. Besides we are not a selling club....

 

[AlienBlade]

If we let him sign a contract on those terms AFTER McDonald, when he was already under contract anyway then the club is more than culpable it's fucking negligent.

there is another way of looking at it, Murphy was moving into his last year of his contract I believe,

he demands that there is a "release fee" inserted otherwise he wont sign it and will walk for free at the end of the season...

do you
a, put in the release clause hoping that the player simply doesnt go,
b, dont put in the clause and know for certain he will be going...

 

[Ted Danson]

He may have ONLY signed a new contract with a release clause.

I don't know - do you?

All I am writing is - the club may not have an option - it is what players and agents do these days

UTB

if they were insisting on a release clause the club should have told them to do one, what a stupid clause from the clubs point of view, basically, if you do well then we'll let you leave but if your shit we're stuck with you.

Im already very dissapointed with the transfers this summer and if Murphy goes Ill be royaly pissed off

 

[AlienBlade]

He's going nowhere. If it was on he would have gone by now so he could play tomorrow. Besides we are not a selling club....

will be intetesting if he plays tomorrow, I think if he's not in the first 11, then we will know the rumours are true...

 

[AlienBlade]

if they were insisting on a release clause the club should have told them to do one, what a stupid clause from the clubs point of view, basically, if you do well then we'll let you leave but if your shit we're stuck with you.

Im already very dissapointed with the transfers this summer and if Murphy goes Ill be royaly pissed off

so you would have told Murphy to do one... and then lost him anyway... (I suppose you would have then whined about the club not doing everything they could to get him signed up...)

 

[Revolution]

We shouldn't conduct our transfer business whilst dwelling on how selling players hasn't worked out in the past.

If the price is right i.e we rip them off, then the potential is there for Adkins to go out and buy a better player.

Jesus. How long have you been a Blade? Because anyone who's been a Blade longer than 2 minutes knows that isn't going to happen.

 

[Mustela Putorius Furo]

agree 100% on that - we won't be popular and wouldn't like to see him go but sometimes these things, however unpopular, will work out for the best in the long run.

UTB

Jones, Birchenall, Salmons, Currie, Hamson, Edwards, Stainrod, Sabella, Ward, Blake, Holdwsorth, Deane, Fjortoft, Jagielka, Walker/Naughton, Blackman, McDonald, Maguire, .... all worked out better in the long run, didn't they?



Since 1992/93 on transfers we've:

spent: £44,600,000
received: £57,800,000

net receipt in transfers: £13,200,000.

Of the current teams in the premier league, only 2 (S'oton and Watford) have positive net receipts.

Of the current teams in the championship, only Reading and Blackburn of the teams that have been in the premiership in the last 10 years have positive receipts on transfers.

Basically, there's a pretty good correlation between a club's league position and it's transfer investment. The more a club receives in comparison to what it spends, the lower in the league the club stands. (i.e. clubs stay low because they uncover talent, and flog it on for big fees to more successful clubs).


United's firmly puts us in .... well, where we are.... the third tier.


Transfer receipts are therefore not the means to finance a club if you want it to become successful. You have to spend more than you receive, and find your running costs from elsewhere.

 

[Blade56]

To sell players you need buyers!

 

[TonyAgana]

To sell players you need buyers!

...or you could spike their drinks and suspend them thus saving wages...