| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm 18:10 - Aug 11 with 25428 views | Hubert |
Just seen it on twitter, Mail journo |  | | |  |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:36 - Aug 12 with 1556 views | _ |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:14 - Aug 12 by Uxbridge |
If he's costing us £2m a year, and we need to free up the cash for whatever reason, then it's quite likely we'd accept a much lower price isn't it?
Maybe not free, but a 50% reduction for a quick sale and get him off the books? Sounds quite plausible to me.
[Post edited 12 Aug 2014 16:15]
|
You keep moulding it and kneading it and playing with it and toying with it and you'l find plausability.
Meanwhile a Dutch football club has been shafted.
Pointless argument from here on in. The basics are there, we all know what's gone on - probably even a recommendation from Leavy. I'd be surprised if we're not paying Utrecht something and my advice would be to show some good will and pay up.
There used to be an independent transfer value tribunal didn't there - for youngsters, in the main. I'd expect something like that here. [Post edited 12 Aug 2014 16:37]
|  |
| |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:41 - Aug 12 with 1537 views | raynor94 |
Looks like huw will be busy Thursday fielding second comings questions and grievances |  |
| |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:42 - Aug 12 with 1530 views | _ |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:41 - Aug 12 by raynor94 |
Looks like huw will be busy Thursday fielding second comings questions and grievances |
Maybe they'll get a CEO in to sort things out then, Raynor? | |
| |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:43 - Aug 12 with 1527 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:32 - Aug 12 by _ |
Haha!
Yes, that's one way to rationalise it and even that would provide Utrecht with a sell on fee.
Do you think we would have touted him as back-up keeper when tying to sell him then? The rhetoric coming from the club would be they would fight it out for no. 1.
Poor effort, Lisa, very poor. |
I think Fabianski was bought specifically to be our first choice keeper, yes. There is not a chance in hell he would have come to us if that wasn't also made very clear to him and it will have been clear to every club out there that that's what we had done.
I think Monk decided he needed a new keeper as we lacked authority at the back, particularly on set pieces. We've been pretty poor on set pieces (in my opinion) ever since we hit the Premier League, and albeit that Vorm was an outstanding shot stopper in the first season and a bit (until his injury), a lot of that must come from Vorm. Since his injury he has also not been an outstanding shot stopper (again in my opinion, although on this point, it seems that Van Gaal also agrees with me). He lacks height and combined with Ash's lack of height, that has contributed to us being so poor on corners / free kicks. If a keeper lacks height, he has to make up for it with outstanding agility and I'm afraid that agility (or a lot of it) went through the window with the injury.
Now it may come back, but not withstanding Spurs' rhetoric as well, they have bought a sub keeper and he would have been our sub keeper. He'll just earn more money doing it there than with us. | | | |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:43 - Aug 12 with 1527 views | Witneyjack |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:41 - Aug 12 by raynor94 |
Looks like huw will be busy Thursday fielding second comings questions and grievances |
Well has said he will be sending some questions as unfortunately he can't make it. It should be very interesting. |  | | |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:45 - Aug 12 with 1513 views | Highjack |
The last season and a half Vorm stopped even diving for shots half the time. |  |
| |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:46 - Aug 12 with 1513 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:42 - Aug 12 by _ |
Maybe they'll get a CEO in to sort things out then, Raynor? |
And yet, a great CEO would always make sure that they had the club's financial interests at heart.
What did you think in the Ipswich situation where the boot was on the other foot? Were we in the wrong then as well? I mean, Ipswich were legally correct, but we were surely the ones being shafted? | | | |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:46 - Aug 12 with 1513 views | raynor94 |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:42 - Aug 12 by _ |
Maybe they'll get a CEO in to sort things out then, Raynor? |
Always said we need one why would I change my mind  | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:48 - Aug 12 with 1508 views | ApeShit |
The mods might as well lock this thread until FIFA's findings are released. |  | | |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:54 - Aug 12 with 1481 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:36 - Aug 12 by _ |
You keep moulding it and kneading it and playing with it and toying with it and you'l find plausability.
Meanwhile a Dutch football club has been shafted.
Pointless argument from here on in. The basics are there, we all know what's gone on - probably even a recommendation from Leavy. I'd be surprised if we're not paying Utrecht something and my advice would be to show some good will and pay up.
There used to be an independent transfer value tribunal didn't there - for youngsters, in the main. I'd expect something like that here. [Post edited 12 Aug 2014 16:37]
|
Just because you keep on repeating it, it doesn't make it so.
Anyway, I'm off down the stadium to tell them they owe me £100k. |  |
| |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:05 - Aug 12 with 1452 views | WarwickHunt |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:46 - Aug 12 by londonlisa2001 |
And yet, a great CEO would always make sure that they had the club's financial interests at heart.
What did you think in the Ipswich situation where the boot was on the other foot? Were we in the wrong then as well? I mean, Ipswich were legally correct, but we were surely the ones being shafted? |
Because a player picked up an injury when he was with us? Hardly.
Perhaps the contract should have been appearance based rather than giving him bonuses for matches he didn't play in... |  | | |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:06 - Aug 12 with 1448 views | _ |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:43 - Aug 12 by londonlisa2001 |
I think Fabianski was bought specifically to be our first choice keeper, yes. There is not a chance in hell he would have come to us if that wasn't also made very clear to him and it will have been clear to every club out there that that's what we had done.
I think Monk decided he needed a new keeper as we lacked authority at the back, particularly on set pieces. We've been pretty poor on set pieces (in my opinion) ever since we hit the Premier League, and albeit that Vorm was an outstanding shot stopper in the first season and a bit (until his injury), a lot of that must come from Vorm. Since his injury he has also not been an outstanding shot stopper (again in my opinion, although on this point, it seems that Van Gaal also agrees with me). He lacks height and combined with Ash's lack of height, that has contributed to us being so poor on corners / free kicks. If a keeper lacks height, he has to make up for it with outstanding agility and I'm afraid that agility (or a lot of it) went through the window with the injury.
Now it may come back, but not withstanding Spurs' rhetoric as well, they have bought a sub keeper and he would have been our sub keeper. He'll just earn more money doing it there than with us. |
Not sure what point you are making apart from trying to drive one of our players value down?
Lets pretend he was still with us and we were looking to find a new home for him, which undoubtedly we were, would you be so keenly talking of driving his value south then? [Post edited 12 Aug 2014 17:11]
| |
| |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:08 - Aug 12 with 1445 views | Tom1912 |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:05 - Aug 12 by WarwickHunt |
Because a player picked up an injury when he was with us? Hardly.
Perhaps the contract should have been appearance based rather than giving him bonuses for matches he didn't play in... |
Aye, massive feck up by us that one.
I imagine we learnt a lesson there. You'd hope so anyway | | | |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:15 - Aug 12 with 1423 views | _ |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 16:46 - Aug 12 by londonlisa2001 |
And yet, a great CEO would always make sure that they had the club's financial interests at heart.
What did you think in the Ipswich situation where the boot was on the other foot? Were we in the wrong then as well? I mean, Ipswich were legally correct, but we were surely the ones being shafted? |
Don't talk wet....
Clegg, speaking to Town's official website , added: "I am genuinely delighted for Swansea City and their fans but the attempted renegotiation and deliberate misinterpretation of agreed terms by their chairman is not fitting for a club which has just secured the ultimate prize in Championship football and with it a £90m windfall.
"Tamas arrived in Swansea fit and became injured whilst under their care. That's football, but contracts have to be honoured and I have absolutely no interest in renegotiating the agreement.
"As a result of Swansea refusing to pay our invoices, I have reported them to the Premier League, sought an immediate transfer embargo and am now seeking full payment of all outstanding sums with the agreed contractual interest rate of 5% above base."
Swansea chairman Huw Jenkins denied any knowledge of the issue, but promised to resolve the matter next week.
He told the club's website : "In response to Ipswich Town's statement, as a club we are completely unaware of any dispute with Ipswich.
"Myself and Simon Clegg talked a few weeks ago regarding the situation of Tamas Priskin returning early from his loan spell, but there has been no correspondence since.
"While we are surprised and disappointed with Simon's statement, we will address the situation and speak to him and Ipswich early next week."
Another embarrassing episode where we tried to penny-pinch and shaft another club.
We looked stupid and paid up, but only after it went public making us look stupid!! | |
| |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:26 - Aug 12 with 1400 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:05 - Aug 12 by WarwickHunt |
Because a player picked up an injury when he was with us? Hardly.
Perhaps the contract should have been appearance based rather than giving him bonuses for matches he didn't play in... |
It should have been - definitely. We need to learn that the small print is important in these contracts so that we are legally correct rather than rely on the moral high ground.... oh wait ;-) | | | |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:31 - Aug 12 with 1391 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:06 - Aug 12 by _ |
Not sure what point you are making apart from trying to drive one of our players value down?
Lets pretend he was still with us and we were looking to find a new home for him, which undoubtedly we were, would you be so keenly talking of driving his value south then? [Post edited 12 Aug 2014 17:11]
|
I'm explaining why Vorm's actual market value could be a lot less in practice than Utrecht may assume.
If it was up to me, given last season, I would have virtually given him away once we had Fabianski to get his very high wages off our books yes. I thought he was shockingly bad last year to be honest. Obviously getting some value for him is preferable, but I don't believe for one minute that Liverpool or anyone else would have paid £5m for him. My priority would have been to make sure he went rather than hold out for a higher fee. | | | |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:37 - Aug 12 with 1378 views | WarwickHunt |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:26 - Aug 12 by londonlisa2001 |
It should have been - definitely. We need to learn that the small print is important in these contracts so that we are legally correct rather than rely on the moral high ground.... oh wait ;-) |
A contract should obviate the need for the high moral ground. Unless, of course, a gun is held to one party's head while they sign it... | | | |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:48 - Aug 12 with 1359 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:37 - Aug 12 by WarwickHunt |
A contract should obviate the need for the high moral ground. Unless, of course, a gun is held to one party's head while they sign it... |
I agree with you, but in this case, I suspect (obviously none of us know) that we are legally correct in that we owe them a % of the sell on profit and there isn't any.
No contract is ever likely to specify a minimum price that we would have to get for him - that would be a restraint on us.
the issue will be whether we have been absolutely straight down the middle in assigning value between Ben and Vorm. I suspect that we haven't, but think that we could probably argue it a number of ways and I am not overly concerned with 'fall out' as I think all clubs are likely to be the same about this sort of stuff. It is a bit what it is - i don't think football is the right business to be in of people want good behaviour, but I think we are not likely to be as bad as most (Liverpool appear from the outside to be dreadful in some of what they do, but don't seem to suffer for it unduly - they are still probably saints compared to most European teams).
Gun to the head would mean no contract of course - but you know that :-) | | | |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:52 - Aug 12 with 1350 views | _ |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:31 - Aug 12 by londonlisa2001 |
I'm explaining why Vorm's actual market value could be a lot less in practice than Utrecht may assume.
If it was up to me, given last season, I would have virtually given him away once we had Fabianski to get his very high wages off our books yes. I thought he was shockingly bad last year to be honest. Obviously getting some value for him is preferable, but I don't believe for one minute that Liverpool or anyone else would have paid £5m for him. My priority would have been to make sure he went rather than hold out for a higher fee. |
It doesn't matter what you think though... Or how you perceived his performances.
What matters is he was definitely worth a transfer fee and even modestly offered by Ux at £2m to £3m would still mean Utrecht getting something. Hey.... the whole point eh!!
You bringing up the Ipswich scenario didn't do yourself or your arguments any favours ! | |
| |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:53 - Aug 12 with 1350 views | skippyjack |
So many Assumptions being written.. I'm concerned.. |  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 18:12 - Aug 12 with 1328 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:52 - Aug 12 by _ |
It doesn't matter what you think though... Or how you perceived his performances.
What matters is he was definitely worth a transfer fee and even modestly offered by Ux at £2m to £3m would still mean Utrecht getting something. Hey.... the whole point eh!!
You bringing up the Ipswich scenario didn't do yourself or your arguments any favours ! |
the point on the Ipswich thing is that we are either legally correct or not, irrespective of 'fairness', a point you seem to be missing in my post. In the Ipswich case, it was 'unfair' on us that we had to pay £1m bonus to Ipswich for promotion re a player that was injured and, indeed, back at Ipswich so not even under our care.
In this case, though it may appear 'unfair' we have sold Vorm for an amount which leads (seemingly at least) to no profit on which Utrecht get a %, if that is legally the case then it is legally the case.
And you're right - it doesn't matter what I think, nor you, nor Vorm himself (who doubtless has a highly inflated view of his own talents). What matters is what the transfer was registered at with FIFA, and if it's below an amount at which Utrecht get money, then, to be honest, tough bloody luck. If it is above that amount, and we legally owe money to Utrecht but are playing silly buggers (as I believe we did with Ipswich) then we are wrong, should pay the money, and stop acting like clowns.
The difference is that you think that even if we are legally correct, we should still pay in a gesture of goodwill - I don't think that. And Ipswich didn't make any goodwill allowance for the fact the player on loan never bloody played did they - hence the analogy. | | | |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 18:19 - Aug 12 with 1320 views | WarwickHunt |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:48 - Aug 12 by londonlisa2001 |
I agree with you, but in this case, I suspect (obviously none of us know) that we are legally correct in that we owe them a % of the sell on profit and there isn't any.
No contract is ever likely to specify a minimum price that we would have to get for him - that would be a restraint on us.
the issue will be whether we have been absolutely straight down the middle in assigning value between Ben and Vorm. I suspect that we haven't, but think that we could probably argue it a number of ways and I am not overly concerned with 'fall out' as I think all clubs are likely to be the same about this sort of stuff. It is a bit what it is - i don't think football is the right business to be in of people want good behaviour, but I think we are not likely to be as bad as most (Liverpool appear from the outside to be dreadful in some of what they do, but don't seem to suffer for it unduly - they are still probably saints compared to most European teams).
Gun to the head would mean no contract of course - but you know that :-) |
Only if you can prove there was a gun... ;-) | | | |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 18:22 - Aug 12 with 1315 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 18:19 - Aug 12 by WarwickHunt |
Only if you can prove there was a gun... ;-) |
I wish I bloody had one - I might aim it at myself at this point. Now where can I get a gun - Dav ?? :-) | | | |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 18:43 - Aug 12 with 1284 views | reddythered |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 14:59 - Aug 12 by Shaky |
OK, I'm with you now.
Clearly the confusion has arisen due to you use of the term 'market price' when what you in fact meant was 'Reddy's Proprietary Market Price'**
** adjusted for market prices Reddy doesn't like.
Sorry to say I am not entirely convinced your innovative definition will catch on, but good luck with it anyway.  |
Are you thick? Actually, scrub that, already been proven.
There is no market price. There's no such thing, never will be. Stated that one already, covered by my point about people seeing values in Football Manager and wanting to bandy figures about.
For Utrecht to have a valid complaint, they would either need evidence there was a monetary value attached to Vorm's sale which has been covered up or ( and less likely to succeed ) argue that he has a market value which it would be scarcely credible wasn't paid.
To come up with such a market value, some arbitrary formula would have to be applied. As I also said previously, the value of a player is the negotiated result from what a buying club want to play and what a selling club would accept. It's way too fluid and dynamic to magically pluck a formula out of your behind... too many factors to calculate in.
So, assuming somewhere decides having some "market value" formula would be - which it isn't - some form of statistical analysis and manipulation has to take place, I'm sure you'd agree. You can't take the highest anymore than you can take the lowest; average can be swayed by both extremes, median may be better but not ideal.
Based upon your logic, all players like Joe Allen at the same age, same position would go for £15m. After all, that was the market value, right? | |
| |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 19:02 - Aug 12 with 1256 views | reddythered |
| Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 17:52 - Aug 12 by _ |
It doesn't matter what you think though... Or how you perceived his performances.
What matters is he was definitely worth a transfer fee and even modestly offered by Ux at £2m to £3m would still mean Utrecht getting something. Hey.... the whole point eh!!
You bringing up the Ipswich scenario didn't do yourself or your arguments any favours ! |
Wrong.
Fabianski made it plain he was leavign Arsenal for first team football. Any observer would thus know he was not going to you lot to "fight for the position". He was going as clear number one. Vorm was thus the backup.
I'll grant you pres-season could change that, but at the time of Fabianski signing the intent was clear.
So, say Vorm was on 2m a year wages, a madeup figure to serve as an example. Assume Fabianksi is on higher - by what degrree isn't necessarily important.
You've thus got a backup keeper on a wage you had determined he, as first choice keeper, should be on. Players generally won't renegotiate downwards so letting him go for free trims the wage bill by 2m.
Say he stayed until January, to get say 2m as a fee, a figure bandied about. Guess what? Made 2m. Paid out around 1m in wages. Profit 1m. Subtract Utrecht money from that.
So either save 2m now or make 350-500k later - and don't forget that the less games Vorm plays this season drives his value down. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
