SouthamptonCanary 0 Posted January 18, 2008 http://www.hibs.co.uk/news/more.php?id=2561_0_1_0_MHibs announce that Ian Murray has terminated his contract with us and will be signing with them til the end of the season.Is it wrong that I am getting a bit worried because Roeder is doing a great job in getting rid of the rubbish but we still haven''t bough in any more fresh faces. I''m worried because if we get any injuries we will be fooked!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Congo Canary 0 Posted January 18, 2008 According to the Hibs. offical web site, Murrey has agreed to to a short term contract after having his contract terminated.So, looks good for somwthing to happen today then chaps!!http://www.hibs.co.uk/news/more.php?id=2561_0_1_0_M Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0 Posted January 18, 2008 Good to see the back of another of Grant''s flops.http://www.hibs.co.uk/news/more.php?id=2561_0_1_0_C Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Infamy, Infamy 0 Posted January 18, 2008 GR said Murray could only go if we had a replacement. Is this good news? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
InLambertWeTrust! 0 Posted January 18, 2008 Does this mean today is the day Martin Taylor arrives? Another good move by Glenn. Cheerio Ian[:)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpA 0 Posted January 18, 2008 Roeder said he would only let him go once he has secured a replacement....hopefully hes close to snapping someone up Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gissing canary 2 Posted January 18, 2008 Either that, or Murray and Hibs agreed to just walk away from current contract and too good for the club to resist? Or is it Glenn forcing the boards hand on transfers by getting rid of more players? Having said this though, not one of the players Glen has scrapped would even get on the bench. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mark Barham Appreciation Society 0 Posted January 18, 2008 I''m a bit confused here. Did we really just terminate/pay up his contract ? With both Hibs and Falkirk interested, surely we could have got a transfer fee ? There seems to be no mention of one.Far from making money out of player transfers, we seem to be settling up and giving them away now ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent Canary 0 Posted January 18, 2008 [quote user="Mark Barham Appreciation Society"]I''m a bit confused here. Did we really just terminate/pay up his contract ? With both Hibs and Falkirk interested, surely we could have got a transfer fee ? There seems to be no mention of one.Far from making money out of player transfers, we seem to be settling up and giving them away now ... [/quote]Indeed, Hibs are supposed to be interested in him. So we bend over backwards to release him for free, then the next day he signs (Albeit short-term) for hibs! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0 Posted January 18, 2008 [quote user="Mark Barham Appreciation Society"]I''m a bit confused here. Did we really just terminate/pay up his contract ? With both Hibs and Falkirk interested, surely we could have got a transfer fee ? There seems to be no mention of one.Far from making money out of player transfers, we seem to be settling up and giving them away now ... [/quote]I don''t think we are paying up their contracts. I think the terminations are mutual in the case of Brellier, Strihavka and Murray. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mark Barham Appreciation Society 0 Posted January 18, 2008 I''m not suggesting we are paying up the whole contract, just that the player''s Mr 15% is bound to have negotiated some sort of settlement/pay-off. And we don''t appear to be making any money when there are clubs clearly interested in him. I can understand that interest in Brellier and Strihavka might not have got us a transfer fee, but with Hibs appearing as keen as they were, surely we could have made something ...Any money towards the gap between Birmingham''s valuation of ''Tiny'' and our £750K, you would have thought, would have been greatly received. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alex_ncfc 643 Posted January 18, 2008 [quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="Mark Barham Appreciation Society"]I''m a bit confused here. Did we really just terminate/pay up his contract ? With both Hibs and Falkirk interested, surely we could have got a transfer fee ? There seems to be no mention of one.Far from making money out of player transfers, we seem to be settling up and giving them away now ... [/quote]I don''t think we are paying up their contracts. I think the terminations are mutual in the case of Brellier, Strihavka and Murray.[/quote]Nowhere has it said mutual - the only writing i''ve seen has all said "contracts terminated" or "released". Besides, even if they are mutual terminations, it doesn''t mean we''re not paying them up - just means we don''t pay the full whack.It''s been doing my nut in for years now that we sign players on medium-to-long contracts and then just pay them off when they flop. Even getting 50k would be better than nothing at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Chops 7 Posted January 18, 2008 [quote user="alex_ncfc"]It''s been doing my nut in for years now that we sign players on medium-to-long contracts and then just pay them off when they flop. Even getting 50k would be better than nothing at all.[/quote]First, Murray, Brellier and Strihavka were not on medium-to-long term contracts.Second, would you rather we kept paying their wages meaning we couldn''t afford to bring new players in or make better offers to players we want to keep? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alex_ncfc 643 Posted January 18, 2008 [quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="alex_ncfc"] It''s been doing my nut in for years now that we sign players on medium-to-long contracts and then just pay them off when they flop. Even getting 50k would be better than nothing at all.[/quote]First, Murray, Brellier and Strihavka were not on medium-to-long term contracts.Second, would you rather we kept paying their wages meaning we couldn''t afford to bring new players in or make better offers to players we want to keep? [/quote]First, FYI Brellier was on a 2 year deal, which says to me medium-to-long term.Second, where the hell did I say I wanted to keep them? The club never seems to make any effort to make a sale. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Chops 7 Posted January 18, 2008 If you don''t terminate their contracts, and can''t sell them, you have to pay their wages.You can''t sell players you don''t own - e.g. Strihavka and Murray. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paul Lamberts Disciple 0 Posted January 18, 2008 Good luck with the new job Ian. One tip for you - make sure you have enough receipt rolls under the till, saves getting off the checkout to get some. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites