BP1960 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 In fairness to Muzza he can only go off what he sees, on another day he might have formed a different opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astottie Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 I don't doubt there are, in fact I bet there are players in Sunday league who are good enough for League football, it's bound to happen especially with the standard of scouting/coaching in this country. I think looking at every player who scores well at non league level though and assuming they are better than what we have is a bit silly - and mocking one of our first team coaches assessments in that respect. The problem with free scoring conference players is they come with a price tag, for free he's worth a shot but for 100k we'd be taking too big a gamble and I wouldn't even consider it on a good goals tally alone. I would imagine Murray's 'no better than what we have' comment looks more at his all round game than just how many goals he's scored. There might be good players in the conference and beyond (no doubt there are) but they are scoring against lower opposition, less organised, less understanding of the game, not as well coached. If we played against conference opposition every week I would expect at least one of our strikers to have 20+ no problem. I don't know a lot about him other than he scores goals at conference level, you would think a coach or scout going to watch him be do so with a very open mind given his impressive stats. I'm inclined to trust Murray that he isn't worth gambling a sizable portion of our budget on. I think this is an important point. If the reported fee of £250K is true then it doesn't really matter how good Murray thinks he is or isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 he could of been bought for 100k but still it would of been a risk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) I think this is an important point. If the reported fee of £250K is true then it doesn't really matter how good Murray thinks he is or isn't. But as I said the season before he was available for nothing and on low wages, the Latics must have been aware of that. Edited June 17, 2014 by BP1960 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 But as I said the season before he was available for nothing and on low wages, the Latics must have been aware of that. Were they though? Were other clubs? Nobody took him... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 ive heard the wages he wanted may have been a stumbling block halifax offered him a good deal as well as time to do his job as a sparky, the blokes done very little on the training pitch and I for one think he will thrive at millwall as a full time pro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics_Fanatic Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 he could of been bought for 100k but still it would of been a risk 100k to the stand or 100k on a unproven striker (at this level) Self-explanatory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 100k to the stand or 100k on a unproven striker (at this level) Self-explanatory. not disagreeing that was what he could of been bought for, at the time we didnt have £2,000,000 + extra to find for the stand though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 100k to the stand or 100k on a unproven striker (at this level) Self-explanatory. I agree on the current fee, but he has been a prolific goalscorer for years, yet no one took a chance on him when he was on a free back then. There are plenty like him available for little money - if only league clubs would give them a chance. I give credit to the Latics for doing that withTurner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 not disagreeing that was what he could of been bought for, at the time we didnt have £2,000,000 + extra to find for the stand though.£100k is about 1.5 players wages for a year. Plus anyone commanding that transfer is going to be our highest earner. You're looking at having him rather than 3 or 4 other players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 he wouldnt od been top earner as he was looking for 3k a week but I undeestand your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 3k a week? More than 150k a year for someone unproven at this level? Yes, great goalscoring record, but so had Steve Whitehall. He may come good and I hope he does. But when we're barely escaping relegation season after season blowing a six figure fee and salary on an unproven striker is a huge, huge gamble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 3k a week? More than 150k a year for someone unproven at this level? Yes, great goalscoring record, but so had Steve Whitehall. He may come good and I hope he does. But when we're barely escaping relegation season after season blowing a six figure fee and salary on an unproven striker is a huge, huge gamble. Yes id much rather get a proven league 1 performer in pay him 5 grand a week and give him a pay off 6 month into a 2 year contract makes much more sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) Yes, there are only two choices. Of course that would be wasteful, but it's also irrelevant. All I said was that spending that much money on someone who's never played at this level is a gamble. That's all. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Edited June 17, 2014 by Crusoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 anyway turners the man this season, shame he will be sold within 12 months though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 anyway turners the man this season, shame he will be sold within 12 months though.Barrel of laughs, you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slystallone Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) This thread amuses me. Non league player who it's been publically stated we were never actually interested in signs for someone else for a big fee, and its got to 3 pages? The transfer fee alone ruled him out for us, let alone the wage demands. Factor in that he hasn't actually played any league football or been a Ft professional footballer and its one heck of a punt from Millwall. It's going to mildly irk me though if this thread is re-visited on a regular basis from certain posters with all-important updates on how he's doing at Millwall. I'm not really arsed how he does at The New Den, and i bet plenty of other are the same... Edited June 18, 2014 by slystallone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 he wouldnt od been top earner as he was looking for 3k a week but I undeestand your point. So the top earner then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 So the top earner then. At the time we had 3 or 4 earning as much if not more in some cases. Granted the clubs policy has changed and they have cleared out the higher earners, as for the club being interested in him we were linked with him and did have a look as it was reported in the chron, his club as well as his own demands put an end to that and Turner was bought instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) This thread amuses me. Non league player who it's been publically stated we were never actually interested in signs for someone else for a big fee, and its got to 3 pages? The transfer fee alone ruled him out for us, let alone the wage demands. Factor in that he hasn't actually played any league football or been a Ft professional footballer and its one heck of a punt from Millwall. It's going to mildly irk me though if this thread is re-visited on a regular basis from certain posters with all-important updates on how he's doing at Millwall. I'm not really arsed how he does at The New Den, and i bet plenty of other are the same... Reading between the lines Sly I think a lot of this comes from the fact the Latics haven't had a prolific goalscorer for years. Edited June 18, 2014 by BP1960 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.hill12 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 At the time we had 3 or 4 earning as much if not more in some cases. Granted the clubs policy has changed and they have cleared out the higher earners, as for the club being interested in him we were linked with him and did have a look as it was reported in the chron, his club as well as his own demands put an end to that and Turner was bought instead.I 'd say it's been 5 years atleast since we had a player on over £2k a week let alone 3! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics_Fanatic Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I 'd say it's been 5 years atleast since we had a player on over £2k a week let alone 3! Not even Baxter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I 'd say it's been 5 years atleast since we had a player on over £2k a week let alone 3! Rooney was on 4 smith and grounds both on more than 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.hill12 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Not sure where you 've got that from but i'm 99% sure it's wrong. Rooney could of been on 4k with swindon paying some. I could be wrong though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 How can anyone other than the players themselves and club directors know the salaries of the players .......how would anyone else become privvy to that sort of info....it always amuses me when people are said to be "in the know" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.