Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Murray offered substantial pay rise, deal still deadlocked







dejavuatbtn

Well-known member
Aug 4, 2010
7,573
Henfield
Playing poker with the Lizard is not recommended. If Muzza wants to hold out for £10k a week then Palace are welcome to him. I don't think any other manager will get out of him what Gus has. He would go back to his lazy, bad, sulky old ways and Palace can foot the bill. I have no fear that Gus won't be able to replace him.
That said, I would like him to stay, 'cos this year he really proved he can do the business, so long as his demands are within Gus's wage structure.
 


Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 15, 2008
31,921
Brighton
If our informal wage cap really is £6.5k a week, seems very low for the Championship and hardly making a statement ?

Actually, there was mention yesterday of the average championship wage being £275k per year, which on a 40 week season works out at £6.8k per week, on a 52 week calender works out at £5.3k per week). While paying the average wage is not necessarily "making a statement" calling it "very low for the chamiponship" would be wrong. (Assuming the figure is accurate)
 


Dick Knights Mumm

Take me Home Falmer Road
Jul 5, 2003
19,736
Hither and Thither
Actually, there was mention yesterday of the average championship wage being £275k per year, which on a 40 week season works out at £6.8k per week, on a 52 week calender works out at £5.3k per week). While paying the average wage is not necessarily "making a statement" calling it "very low for the chamiponship" would be wrong. (Assuming the figure is accurate)

Good strikers never get the average though.
 






Springal

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2005
24,780
GOSBTS
Exactly, I'd be suprised if teams where we are aspiring to be, many of their starting 11, were anywhere near that figure? I have a mate at Derby who have been in the Championship for a good while and he seems to think most of their players (and this is a team at the foot of the league) are £8k-£15k a week
 


Set of Tracksuits

Active member
Oct 27, 2003
1,511
Leicester
If the figures are correct it's not "very low for the championship" but is it relatively low for one of the most important players at a club who have ambitions to be an established Championship team? Maybe.
 






227 BHA

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
3,319
Findon Valley, Worthing
I really think we should just bite the bullet and pay him 10k per week. That's only 1.5 mill over a 3 year contract for a quality player that's a bargain!
It's been well speculated that we bid approaching 1 mill for Hoskins and that's before we pay him any wages!
I know who I'd rather have!!
 


Betfair Bozo

Well-known member
Jul 24, 2007
2,107
I am informed by a Bristolian source that the figures mentioned re the Hoskins deal were wildly exaggerated. Try about a sixth of the amount + around the same again in add ons...
 






El Presidente

The ONLY Gay in Brighton
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
40,000
Pattknull med Haksprut
Exactly, I'd be suprised if teams where we are aspiring to be, many of their starting 11, were anywhere near that figure? I have a mate at Derby who have been in the Championship for a good while and he seems to think most of their players (and this is a team at the foot of the league) are £8k-£15k a week

Derby have averaged crowds of 26,000 this season, which is the fourth best in the division, despite being shite, and have had the Sky TV money for being in the Championship for the last few seasons. They can offer more money than us in those circumstances.
 


severnside gull

Well-known member
May 16, 2007
24,825
By the seaside in West Somerset
Glenn will ultimately do what is best for Glenn and who amongst us could criticise that. Football IS a short career and one thing for sure is that he won't be extending his career as a tv or radio pundit :)

I'm sure that Walt has it about right and whilst we probably won't budge too much on basic salary and there are probably 20 clubs in the Championship who will pay more than us on a one-off basis if they need a particular type of player. However there is always a bit more room for manoeuvre with regards to the signing on fee.

Gus is not directly involved in the negotiations but he will certainly have made it clear how important doing a deal is to him in the greater scheme of things. We have no way of knowing what he may have said.

A lot is made of Muzza's scoring ability and and how much we will miss it. This has clearly been his best season in that respect but I think it's possibly the easiest element of his overall game to replace. Even more so he has won us more penalties and free kicks in one season than we probably had in his previous two years under contract combined. His defensive contribution has also improved beyond recognition. That said, if he goes will we be playing the same sort of game next year with a central target man/outlet, or will Gus opt for a more free-flowing "continental" approach? We simply don't know and for all the debate we won't know until contract matters, both in and out, are resolved.

It's going to be a great summer.................................
 


El Presidente

The ONLY Gay in Brighton
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
40,000
Pattknull med Haksprut
If the figures are correct it's not "very low for the championship" but is it relatively low for one of the most important players at a club who have ambitions to be an established Championship team? Maybe.

I would love Glenn to sign, but to date, he has scored zero goals in the Championship.
 






Basil Fawlty

Don't Mention The War
We're not going to be held to ranson by his greedy agent and his Representatives. If Muzzer does go, then we'll definitely find a suitable replacement for him. It aint the end of the world, but with Scumhampton looking at the situation closely I hope we can sort this out immediately.
 


Brighton Breezy

New member
Jul 5, 2003
19,439
Sussex
I never understand where the notion of agents being greedy comes from.

Their job is to get the best deal for their client. That is what they are paid to do.
 


Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,827
Uffern
I never understand where the notion of agents being greedy comes from.

Their job is to get the best deal for their client. That is what they are paid to do.


It's because their job is to get the best deal for their client, not the most money. That's what a lot of them are confused by (see Poyet's comments on Bridcutt's deal last month)
 








Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here