by linkenholtroyal » 19 Jan 2015 13:54
by Ian Royal » 19 Jan 2015 14:37
by WoodleyRoyal » 19 Jan 2015 14:39
by urz13 » 19 Jan 2015 15:00
by Gilksy » 19 Jan 2015 15:01
by Ian Royal » 19 Jan 2015 17:20
Gilksy £2m is very steep for a 31 year old. Maybe that's with add-ons based on a future promotion. I'll be stunned if we spend even £1.5m on one player at the moment though.
by andrew1957 » 19 Jan 2015 18:40
by P!ssed Off » 19 Jan 2015 18:44
by marlowuk » 19 Jan 2015 19:37
Dave-Royal WE need a forward Please Reading fc Make Murray Return
by Royal Ginger » 19 Jan 2015 19:39
P!ssed Off No, no, no, no, no.
There is no justification for paying out transfer fees for players the wrong side of 30.
This rumoured transfer fee would make Nick Blackman look like a oxf*rd bargain.
Where is the logic in this transfer?
We will not be relegated this season without Murray.
We will not be promoted this season with Murray.
Therefore what is the point of signing Murray?
Is it a signing for the long term?
Of course it isn't.
by RoyalBlue » 19 Jan 2015 20:10
P!ssed Off No, no, no, no, no.
There is no justification for paying out transfer fees for players the wrong side of 30.
This rumoured transfer fee would make Nick Blackman look like a oxf*rd bargain.
Where is the logic in this transfer?
We will not be relegated this season without Murray.
We will not be promoted this season with Murray.
Therefore what is the point of signing Murray?
Is it a signing for the long term?
Of course it isn't.
by sandman » 19 Jan 2015 20:16
RoyalBlueP!ssed Off No, no, no, no, no.
There is no justification for paying out transfer fees for players the wrong side of 30.
This rumoured transfer fee would make Nick Blackman look like a oxf*rd bargain.
Where is the logic in this transfer?
We will not be relegated this season without Murray.
We will not be promoted this season with Murray.
Therefore what is the point of signing Murray?
Is it a signing for the long term?
Of course it isn't.
And Blackman is so far the perfect illustration of how buying young, not particularly cheap, players isn't always the answer. Three points tossed away on Saturday because he failed to convert a simple chance that the 'old' 'expensive' Murray would have buried, along with a couple of others that afternoon.
And our failure to score enough goals could well lead to us facing relegation without Murray. We are dropping too many points because our existing striking options are not converting enough of the chances that they are being presented with.
So there is your logic.
by blueroyals » 19 Jan 2015 20:19
by Pepe the Horseman » 19 Jan 2015 20:34
blueroyals
* he can't play for 3 teams within 1 season. He either stays there or comes here.
by Ian Royal » 19 Jan 2015 21:22
by Lower West » 19 Jan 2015 22:04
Sanguine Difficult to couple criticism of spending money on a (albeit older) goalscorer with the suggestion we 'risk relegation', and the financial implications of that.
by BraisingsteakRoyal » 20 Jan 2015 09:27
by WoodleyRoyal » 20 Jan 2015 09:39
BraisingsteakRoyal This is all moot - he won't be coming here.
Its abundantly clear (from his non-committal press interviews, his twitter, his body language whilst playing for us etc), that he feels he can do better than us, and he probably can.
by WoodleyRoyal » 20 Jan 2015 09:43
Users browsing this forum: Snowflake Royal and 159 guests