NailseaRed Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 Why again did we sell murray? Didn't we sell him so that we could have some money to clear some of our debts? Or did we sell him so that we could buy two players namely Wilkshire and Miller? If we did it for the latter reason then we have just bought two players that combined would not be as good as murray, good decision by the board there then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 As I recall, Murray himself wanted to leave City and who can blame him? A chance to triple his wages and play in a higher league. Steve Landsdown has publically stated several times that he didn`t want Murray to go,but given Murray's desire to move on he had little choice but to let him go. The contencious issue was how little City got for him.It was way short of what most City fans expected. No-ones to blame here,just one of those things. :Confused13: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fct Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 I think you'll find it was because there were fears Murray would go for nothing at the end of this season if he was still here. His contract was due up at the end of this season, so the feeling was better get some money for him rather than see him go on a Bosman to a team offering him double the wages we could give him. The Board had little to do with the manager's choice of Wilkshire and Miller, so don't go pointing the finger at them. If it had been to clear debts which the Board are covering out of their own pockets, then we would have not got anyone in at all for the money gleaned from Murray's transfer. To insinuate that the Board are to blame for the problems is unfair, as they sacrificed getting some of their money back by allowing Wilson to buy. Ultimately its Bosman's fault, if you wish to point a finger anywhere. But then we all knew this sort of thing would happen and as usual its the smaller clubs like ourselves that suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WillsbridgeRed Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 "Ultimately its Bosman's fault, if you wish to point a finger anywhere. But then we all knew this sort of thing would happen and as usual its the smaller clubs like ourselves that suffer." To me the Bosman symbolises everything that is wrong in football - If only this ruling could be repealed. It would make financial matters far more stable in the long term, and lessen the player power that has taken hold of the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fct Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 I know but money talks and little clubs walk in these days. Look at the absurdity of the Champions League. We have teams from 2nd down to 4th place taking part from Spain, Italy, England and other nations. What's that to do with champions? What are they champions of? Its a Kerry-Packer type loot rush, money talking and getting in the way of sense. To me a champions league ought to be between the champions of each UEFA nation only, and no matter if Arsenal are miles better than, say, Kuopian Paaloseura, only the champion of their respective country should play in that competition and the runner-up go to the UEFA Cup. This greed and lust for lucre is obscene and its destroying teams like ours. Ultimately you'll have a half dozen sides in a few countries able to play and nobody else as they'll all have gone down the drain. UEFA and FIFA are partly to blame too, especially FIFA with their corrupt leader Blatter. He's the man behind that disgusting episode with that German TV firm that went bust owing millions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WillsbridgeRed Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 Very true, the champions league is the face of the monster - A greedy, self obsessed few that have little or no regard for the spot as a whole. Maybe if the banks would stop lending the huge amounts to clubs like Arsenal ect then the gravey train would halt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fct Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 Well I can say for a fact the money being paid out to players is mind-blowing. Look at Manchester City for example, their wage bill is £35,000,000 annually, which means, assuming they have 35,000 average gates, each supporter pays £1,000 per season just to break even on the wages ALONE. Then they have to fund new signings etc!! And this is not one of the bigger Prem clubs. Its way over the top and the only way football is going to get back to sensible times is when the clubs stop paying these over the top wages. And people like Abramovitch coming in throwing stupid money around do not help at all, they maintain and in fact add to the inflation of the system which in turn hurts clubs like ours even more. So lets not look to HIM as a role model, as he's helping to harm us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Neo Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 As I recall, Murray himself wanted to leave City and who can blame him? A chance to triple his wages and play in a higher league. Steve Landsdown has publically stated several times that he didn`t want Murray to go,but given Murray's desire to move on he had little choice but to let him go. The contencious issue was how little City got for him.It was way short of what most City fans expected. No-ones to blame here,just one of those things. :Confused13: On the way back home Saturday, somebody was on Twentyman saying that Scott went to the board saying that Reading had offered to double his salary and that if this was matched by City, he would stay. Obviously could be complete nonsense. The caller was stating that City should have done it. Geoff hit back with doubling somebody's wages could break wage structures etc. Interesting debate though. I am reasonably sure that if any of this is accurate, most fans would feel (NOW ANYWAY) the board should have tried to meet those demands or somewhere close. what's think? :Confused13: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fct Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 They couldn't have afforded it, Neo. The club is up to its neck in debt and there's nothing left to fund any more. They had little choice but to let him go, but I can tell you they didn;t want him to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WillsbridgeRed Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 Hindsight is a wonderfull thing, and we're ALL guilty of it. Imagine if he did stay - "Why didn't we sell Murry" ect ect I'd rahte rwe got some money for Murry rather than he went for free and/or it plundged us into more finaincial troubles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NailseaRed Posted November 3, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 You're saying we are upto our neck in debt, so why not get more money for scott?! And then why not keep the money we got for him to clear some debts? Instead what we have done is lost our best player for years and the exact money we got for Murray has gone straight back out of the door on miller and wilkshire. We have no more money now than when we had murray, just miller and wilkshire instead of murray simple as that surely? Are we paying miller and wilkshire's salaries combined, less then we needed to pay murray to stay? This might sound weird but I'd almost be happier if we'd of used the money to clear some debts and not bought those 2 players, could least see a point to losing murray then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WillsbridgeRed Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 I wonder if the wages or Miller and Wilkshire combined are less than that of Scotts a) now (b ) when he was with us. If the answer was yes to either of them ESPECIALLY A) then that is very dissapointing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NailseaRed Posted November 3, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 Basically we have wasted the money we got for Scott. I say we should of gambled and kept him for one more season, we may well of gone up this season then. So at the end of this season it'd either be let murray go for free (OK the gamble is lost but surely if the gamble had of succeeded it would of been worth it) or rely of his love of the club to sign a new contract if things were looking up or we'd be in the 1st division and he'd definitely of stayed. I posted last week saying to look forward but that performance on saturday was the most obvious yet this season as to what we are lacking, and I don't need to spell that out and I sadly don't see how we are going to fill that gap, spend more money? If we do that then it's even more proof that we should of kept super scott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tompo Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WillsbridgeRed Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 I think this is what we should all go by.......... .........NO PLAYER IS BIGGER THAN THE CLUB (within reason, obviously Becks ect are) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NailseaRed Posted November 3, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 But it's a gamble I would of liked us to take. Just my personal opinion. We could also be top with scotty netting us 8-10 extra goals and us sailing the division. But it's unfortunately all "what ifs" and we'll never know Just sometimes strikes me as the answer to all our problems at the mo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 But we have taken a gamble. The board have pumped money, which in all fairness could've gone to clearing debts, back into the playing squad. To say we've wasted the money at this stage is nothing other than naive. Personally, I think Luke Wilkshire and Lee Miller will turn out to be quality players that could go on to play at a much higher level. But then what do I know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfc seattle Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 It seems to me we got money for a polished player and reinvested some/most of it into two new younger (read unpolished) players who probably/certainly have a higher ceiling between them than Scott. Is Scott a better player than them right now? yes. Will he be worth more money in 3 or 4 years? probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.