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.
