RVW

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

I see where you''re coming from Morty but I think my point still stands that AN will not want to make a decision on him until he''s had a good look at him.

If he can be strengthened up to cope with English football then great.

The alternative is play him up top with another and see how he''d play alongside Jerome but what worries me is that Hooper is also that kind of forward.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Rich T The Biscuit"]I see where you''re coming from Morty but I think my point still stands that AN will not want to make a decision on him until he''s had a good look at him.

If he can be strengthened up to cope with English football then great.

The alternative is play him up top with another and see how he''d play alongside Jerome but what worries me is that Hooper is also that kind of forward.[/quote]

Oh for sure, he should at least have a look, but I would be more confident if Ricky had gone on loan and done a lot better than he did.

I cant envisage us playing two strkers very often. And i would definitely put Grabban and Hooper ahead of ricky if we did.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

I haven''t read through all the posts so I don''t know if this point has been made. But Neil plainly favours playing only one up front. If that is his preferred starting system in the the Championship then it is almost certain he will stick with it in the more demanding Premier League. From what little I saw of van Wolfswinkel he is almost comically unsuited to that role. His only obvious position would be playing off a muscular target-man in a 4-4-2. A system we might only employ at some point in some matches.Even, which I doubt, Neil thought van Wolfswinkel might just be a PL-quality player, we can hardly afford to have such a potentially little-used luxury in the squad.

[morty 0]

I was just about to type " I predict he will slip away quietly to a european club for an undisclosed fee, likey 2 millionish" but I am thinking about his record over the last two seasons, and do wonder if we would even get that.

[smooth 114]

Rvw''s movement in te box was very good in the premier league.

He often would lose his marker to only see our wide am check back on the inside and again need to work a new run.

At the end of the season the few chances we did create for him were executed well just the keeper was in the right place.

I am certain stock dale pulled off a great save from a header.

If we had pacey wingers who put the ball in early then rvw''s movement would get him chances and goals.

His pedigree is very good and I am glad we are in the peen for AN to have a look.

I don''t think our pecking order is as stated as all are very different. I don''t think grabban is a prem calibre striker but he has a chance. If he can convert more then he will be good. But in this league you get a lot less chances.

I think rvw comes into a team with confidence, less pressure and we will add another level of quality around him.

I think rvw is a player we need next season. You cannot have enough strikers with injuries and suspensions so vital in a very short season.

We may buy a striker but I hope rvw can e part of that group.

[Newton 0]

smooth wrote the following post at 28/05/2015 11:24 AM:

Rvw''s movement in te box was very good in the premier league.

He often would lose his marker to only see our wide am check back on the inside and again need to work a new run.

 

 

Rearly Smooth - nearly wet myself laughing, he never even got into a sweat, he used to amble up the pitch with his back to the ball and position himself at the far post waiting for a cross that never came. If the ball was ever passed to him he either lost control or fell over it. With him in the team it was like playing with 10 men - Absolute Cr@p

[Six Pack 91]

With only 25 places available for the squad would AN take the risk ?He is giving Andreu a chance to "beef up" so why not RVW.Also not sure if Hughton actually preferred RVW. It might have been in his contract that he plays. Just like AN''s carrot to Dorrans.

[......and Smith must score. 1,334]

[quote user="Funny old game"]There are lots of unrealistic expectations on this site. It''s not your own money. Yes, £10 million is a lot of money but it''s not £25 million for Andy Carroll or silly loan money for Falcao. Go down a level to Soldado at Spurs, Hernandez at Hull or Altidore at Sunderland. All premier league clubs have got them but they''ve also got the money to take calculated, affordable risks. This is what RVW was. It didn''t pay off, write it off and move on. Being in the top league changes the financial imperative and you can''t run the club with a corner shop mentality of thrift and parsimony. To do so ends in gallant relegation a la Burnley. So yeh in an ideal world you want your club to get more right than wrong but it doesn''t always turn out like that. BTW Harry Kane didn''t look like a 30 goal a season nan when he was with us last season. And for those with linger memories I still think that £300k on Drazen Muzinic in 1980 was a worse buy.not sure what that would be worth now but probably around the £10 million mark so perhaps RVW was not the worst ever signing! We can afford to take these risks. Some pay off and some don''t. RVW had a reasonable goal scoring record at a reasonable level before coming to us. If there was such a thing as a certainty they''d all be at it and life would be easier.[/quote]Agree with this.AN will give him a look - he''s nothing to lose as he''s under contract - but if he doesn''t think he''ll improve the squad he''ll go for whatever amount the club decides. If that happens we''re sure to take a big hit on the fee - he might even go for free - but the wage bill will be freed up.I don''t know why people are so obsessed with the notion that we musn''t lose too much money on the deal. We''ve got a fantastic record in turning over a profit on players over the years but as FOG says sometimes you get it wrong and you just have to take a hit.It''s football.....s*it happens.

[Andy G 10]

I''d love to see him return, given a fresh slate and a boost of confidence - just the same as AN gave Bassong.

When we signed RVW we all saw the video''s on youtube of his scoring abilities and all thought we''d found a fantastic striker.

I don''t for one minute doubt RVW''s ability, his season for us was unfortunate and I think he found the style of play frustrating, RVW is a player who wants to play as close to the opposition box as possible, making himself the small pockets of space and then hoping the ball comes to him.

Under Houghton he wasn''t getting the service which we can now provide with our rb/lb flying up the wings and he looked uncomfortable tracking back and being used as a midfield/defender.

My concern is whether AN would use him, and that alone is a question for AN - for AN RVW is basically a new signing.

What i''ve seen this year is that AN likes to play a heavy hitter upfront, someone like Jerome or Grabban who will run through defenders and make their own chances.

If he wants a technically gifted player he has one in Hooper who doesn''t get much of a sniff and there in lies my problem, Hooper and RVW are much the same type of player and I can''t see either getting much game time under AN unless we mix up our formation.

I do wonder though if by letting Becchio go has AN freed up the bench space for RVW?

[grefstad 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"] From what little I saw of van Wolfswinkel he is almost comically unsuited to that role. His only obvious position would be playing off a muscular target-man in a 4-4-2. [/quote]

Thats bollocks. RvW played a lot in a 4-3-3 system in the past, and did well there.

4-3-3 is not so different from 4-5-1, depending on how you deploy the wingers.

He was an isolated figure under Hughton, but then again, all strikers would be.

Given proper support and a more attacking team ethos, RvW could be an asset to us.

I would give him a chance, and I think AN will too, unless we can offload him for silly money.

[grefstad 0]

I expect Hooper to leave given the right offer. He will not be used much in a 4-5-1 system, as AN prefer a beefy forward, who can run a bit. Hooper is not a hard worker, and is too small, and can mostly hope for sub appearances late in the games if we are chasing goals and committing men forward.

I think Hooper knows this deep down. Hooper did not play a lot under AN.

So, if Hooper leaves, RvW is very much the same type of player. A fox in the box, and he can also hope for sub appearances or at best a few games in a 4-4-2 alongside Jerome or Grabban. We won''t play much 4-4-2 in the Prem, though.

90% of the games will be 4-5-1 or at best 4-4-1-1.

[hogesar 9,618]

I''m still pissing myself laughing that there''s fans on this thread who are criticising Snodgrass yet want to give RVW another chance, as if he''s earned the chance!

Sorry but he''s been below average on loan this season, hasn''t even been able to hold down a starting place at St Etienne. I think he scored 4 goals in 6 cup games, but this was against very poor opposition. He scored 5 league goals, i think?

I''m pretty sure AN will watch a couple of videos of him playing on loan this season and safely decide he''s not worth even talking to.

[smooth 114]

Newton afraid rvw does have great movement. Sorry but it was there it was even mentioned on motd with examples. But hey some people see it and some don''t

We need a new striker and with him on the books he is worth a look at. We will see what happens

[Tetteys Jig 830]

A lot depends on what offers we get for him as well. If nothing is forthcoming, we might as well use him, give him a chance off the bench and see what happens. I reckon in all likelihood, St Etienne will come back with a reduced offer and he''ll go.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]A lot depends on what offers we get for him as well. If nothing is forthcoming, we might as well use him, give him a chance off the bench and see what happens. I reckon in all likelihood, St Etienne will come back with a reduced offer and he''ll go.[/quote]

I think that is the likliest outcome too.

Would you really name him in our 25 man squad based on what he has shown on the pitch in the last two seasons?

Looking good in pre season against shit opposition and doing it in training doesn''t really count for much. Or taking up good positions and nearly scoring.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

If there is space in the 25 no harm putting him in it - I don''t think Norwich will have too much trouble keeping the squad under that size.

Whilst his goal return hasn''t been brilliant for St Etienne (who aren''t a particularly high scoring team) he is well liked there and the manager and board would like to keep him if they can strike a deal. The biggest stumbling block will be wages, Ricky will now be back on the wages he had when he first came to Norwich, not the reduced figure he had post-relegation. Can''t imagine St Et will be able to match that.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]If there is space in the 25 no harm putting him in it - I don''t think Norwich will have too much trouble keeping the squad under that size.

Whilst his goal return hasn''t been brilliant for St Etienne (who aren''t a particularly high scoring team) he is well liked there and the manager and board would like to keep him if they can strike a deal. The biggest stumbling block will be wages, Ricky will now be back on the wages he had when he first came to Norwich, not the reduced figure he had post-relegation. Can''t imagine St Et will be able to match that.[/quote]

I would like to hope that if does stay, the only reason why is that Alex Neil wants him. And not because we dont want to make a financial loss. We have just got rid of Becchio, we dont want another one on the books.

[Webbo118 0]

Without a doubt, he will only be here if AN wants him.

[CDMullins 436]

I''d like to see him playing as a No.10 just off Cameron, although slight he is neat and tidy with the ball. Could see him linking up well with Cameron, his movement is superb and under the right instructions to the wingers could be the great signing we all hoped/expected he would be.For what we would get back, I''d  give him another crack.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]If there is space in the 25 no harm putting him in it - I don''t think Norwich will have too much trouble keeping the squad under that size.

Whilst his goal return hasn''t been brilliant for St Etienne (who aren''t a particularly high scoring team) he is well liked there and the manager and board would like to keep him if they can strike a deal. The biggest stumbling block will be wages, Ricky will now be back on the wages he had when he first came to Norwich, not the reduced figure he had post-relegation. Can''t imagine St Et will be able to match that.[/quote]Bethnal, you may have more up-to-date information, but in April St-Etienne said they couldn''t afford to buy van Wolfswinkel and so would be sending him back.That may have been a negotiating ploy, but they are not a rich club either in terms of the transfer fees they pay or wages. And the manager relegating the player mainly to the role of unused sub for the last quarter of the season hardly looks like a long-term vote of confidence.My guess wouild be that we cuts our considerable losses and RvW never plays for us again, and either, if he has settled in France, he moves to a smaller club - possibly one coming up from the second tier - or goes back to The Netherlands.

[Newton 0]

CDMullins wrote the following post at 28/05/2015 4:04 PM:

I''d like to see him playing as a No.10 just off Cameron, although slight he is neat and tidy with the ball.

Could see him linking up well with Cameron, his movement is superb and under the right instructions to the wingers could be the great signing we all hoped/expected he would be

 

CDM have you ever seen him play in the flesh :-

 

He has limited movement

He has no physical presence

He could not trap a bag of cement

When he does move he has no speed what so ever

Players are relectant to give him the ball as they never get it back

 

Get your head out of the clouds 8/9 goals in 2 years - utter flop

[Newton 0]

morty wrote the following post at 28/05/2015 3:33 PM:

I would like to hope that if does stay, the only reason why is that Alex Neil wants him. And not because we dont want to make a financial loss. We have just got rid of Becchio, we dont want another one on the books.

Morty I would not worry about a loss on the Bechio deal

Big losses on the horizon as we try & unload the following from our wages bill :-

Wolf

Voo

San Miquel

Lafferty

 

None cut the mustard in the Champs and no matter what coloured glasses you wear they aint gonna do anything in the Prem

 

I recon the best part of £6Mpa  in wages there - what about you ?

[morty 0]

[quote user="Newton"]

morty wrote the following post at 28/05/2015 3:33 PM:

I would like to hope that if does stay, the only reason why is that Alex Neil wants him. And not because we dont want to make a financial loss. We have just got rid of Becchio, we dont want another one on the books.

Morty I would not worry about a loss on the Bechio deal

Big losses on the horizon as we try & unload the following from our wages bill :-

Wolf

Voo

San Miquel

Lafferty

 

None cut the mustard in the Champs and no matter what coloured glasses you wear they aint gonna do anything in the Prem

 

I recon the best part of £6Mpa  in wages there - what about you ?

[/quote]

Miquel and Voo not likely on much money and both maybe " ones for the future"

Flog wolf on, at a loss

Lafferty on loan again somewhere, run his contract down with someone else paying his wages.

[Miss Bum Bum 0]

Would like the club to confirm sooner rather than later what they plan the thought of the Wolf coming back terrifies me

[Miss Bum Bum 0]

The club is silent The wolf is silent when will someone put him and us out of our misery.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Purple:-

There are some quotes from McNally saying he is in contact with St Et and that he''ll be ''having a chat'' with them over Ricky''s future. I imagine the agreed price mentioned at the beginning of RVW''s move will have been reliant on them reaching the Champs League so will be reduced automatically. With a package based on appearances, goals and achievements I think St Et will find a way to make the deal permanent. Wouldn''t be surprised if Norwich agree to continue paying a portion of his wages to make it happen though.

Newton:-

It took Cameron Jerome 3 seasons to score 9 goals before the current one. Would you say he is a total flop?

[ABC (A Basingstoke Canary) 26]

Hogesar,

It appears as if you are a Snodgrass fan. However, his bully boy tactics (not just towards RVW) helped cause disharmony in the team and was without doubt a major contributor to our relegation. You say he was our hardest working player - maybe so - but not to the benefit of NCFC - he was a disruptive element and we are best rid of him.

As for RVW, there''s no doubt that his confidence was affected, however, who knows what magic AN can perform.

[Highland Canary 76]

Would welcome Snodgrass back. As for RVW and Lafferty cut our losses and invest in a goal scorer proven in the PL.

[Surfer 1,547]

I would not. He drove me nuts by constantly slowing down our attacks. A good dead ball specialist, but as a winger although he clearly had guts, his crossing that started out good deteriorated badly in quality over the season. At the end we just seemed to retain the whiny attitude.

Not saying that others - like Fer - also didn''t cover themselves with glory, but that''s my take on RS last year.

[king canary 7,578]

@Bethnal- context is important in that discussion. Jerome wasn''t bought by those teams to be the number one striker, wasn''t bought for a record transfer fee and wasn''t hyped beyond belief.