RVW again (sorry)

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,023]

It matters not a jot what we think about RVW, it only matters what Alex Neil thinks about RVW and personally I trust his judgement......

[Yellow Wal 314]

All at once a much deeper look at our strikers is going on.

We have five established strikers with another one, Loza, waiting in the wings.

Of the five Jerome has shown, at the end of the season, just how good he can be. He did not gain England U21 caps without showing potential but it has only been since Alex Neil has been in charge that he has once more shown what a good player he can be. He will be a very big player for us this season.

Grabban was first choice for many matches when Jerome had a niggling injury and his powerful running (which Alex Neil insisted Jerome added to his game) proved to be just what the manager wanted in the system he prefers.

Hooper is the most natural goalscorer at the club but does not have the powerful running or the same workrate as Jerome or Grabban and as such is less likely to start matches than them as AN has made it clear that he prefers one man up front. If he stays, and I would not be surprised to see him move on, I can see most of his appearances coming from the bench.

RvW is an unknown to AN and I would not be surprised to see him take a good look before determining his fate. He is a Dutch international and has shown in the past that he can play. It has been said that he cannot play as a lone striker but it must be remembered that he was being played as a lone striker in a Hughton team. Even Grant Holt struggled to look good with that set up as did Elmander, Hooper and Kane. One up front in an AN team is a different matter altogether and perhaps, just perhaps, we should just wait and see.

Lafferty seems the most likely to move on. AN took a look last season and was then happy to loan him out. He obviously has made his mind up.

Loza is a long way off the team and I don''t think he will ever be a regular starter. A good League Two or possibly League One player but never a Premiership player.

So for me it''s keep Jerome and Grabban whilst Hooper and RvW could go either way and Lafferty and Loza can move on.

Your thoughts?

[93vintage 16]

It seems to be taken as a given that RVW can''t play as a lone striker, but didn''t he play in that role for St Etienne?

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

If RvW did play that role for St Etienne, he obviously didn''t do it well enough for them to follow through with his transfer!

Imo there''s one up front in a really ploddy way, such as Hughton seemed to espouse, or the much more dynamic way that AN plays - so who knows, perhaps RVW will thrive in that role for us. He really had little luck with injuries and circumstances (eg the Villa pen) and a loss of form that really knocked him; It''d be great to still see him come off, it is hard to see happening and would take a lot of faith in him, but it has been done before.

[YorkshirePudding 0]

Summed up by Yellow Wall quite nicely for me

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="93vintage"]It seems to be taken as a given that RVW can''t play as a lone striker, but didn''t he play in that role for St Etienne?[/quote]Yes. He did. Or at least he tried to, because that seems generally to have been the system the coach used. But the consensus (without one dissenting view as far as I saw) from St-Etienne fans at the end of the season was that he simply was not suited to such a role. And you don''t just to have to take the view of the fans. The club and the coach, who has just signed a contract extension, also made no noises about wanting van Wolfswinkel back. Which is hardly surprising. He failed there.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="Yellow Wall"]All at once a much deeper look at our strikers is going on.

We have five established strikers with another one, Loza, waiting in the wings.

Of the five Jerome has shown, at the end of the season, just how good he can be. He did not gain England U21 caps without showing potential but it has only been since Alex Neil has been in charge that he has once more shown what a good player he can be. He will be a very big player for us this season.

Grabban was first choice for many matches when Jerome had a niggling injury and his powerful running (which Alex Neil insisted Jerome added to his game) proved to be just what the manager wanted in the system he prefers.

Hooper is the most natural goalscorer at the club but does not have the powerful running or the same workrate as Jerome or Grabban and as such is less likely to start matches than them as AN has made it clear that he prefers one man up front. If he stays, and I would not be surprised to see him move on, I can see most of his appearances coming from the bench.

RvW is an unknown to AN and I would not be surprised to see him take a good look before determining his fate. He is a Dutch international and has shown in the past that he can play. It has been said that he cannot play as a lone striker but it must be remembered that he was being played as a lone striker in a Hughton team. Even Grant Holt struggled to look good with that set up as did Elmander, Hooper and Kane. One up front in an AN team is a different matter altogether and perhaps, just perhaps, we should just wait and see.

Lafferty seems the most likely to move on. AN took a look last season and was then happy to loan him out. He obviously has made his mind up.

Loza is a long way off the team and I don''t think he will ever be a regular starter. A good League Two or possibly League One player but never a Premiership player.

So for me it''s keep Jerome and Grabban whilst Hooper and RvW could go either way and Lafferty and Loza can move on.

Your thoughts?[/quote]Two points. Neil has seemingly already made up his mind, because we have tried to sell van Wolfswinkel back to Sporting Lisbon. And the idea that under Hughton he always played as a lone striker is a bit of a myth. In a quick search I found six games (and there may well have been more) in that season when van Wolfswinkel started with another striker (usually Elmander but once Hooper). The bottom line is that van Wolfswinkel has twice had chances to prove himself in one of the top five European leagues, and failed twice. As a result we have tried to get rid of him. If he wants to stay put and take a big salary without playing serious football we may be presented with a dilemma. But otherwise the situation seems quite clear.

[TimDim 0]

The situation maybe more to do with your last thought ie his salary. If he was so bad the Sporting Lisbon would not even have contemplated having him back. However far that went. Nor would St Etienne have taken him on. Likewise City would have taken it on the chin, used the PL money and paid off as much as it requitred to move him on. My thoughts are that he is a good player and could easily play a role this coming season now he is freed of the deatheater destructive force that was Hughton. A manager who was capable of stifling both Holt and Kane, nevermind killing off Becchio. However the games in Germany and the weeks training with the club will decide whether he is here come Sept 3rd. I hope he is.

[The Great Wall Of Tettey 0]

With his wages being so high Neil has given him a price he can leave at as he regards him as replaceable, although I''m sure everybody has a price....

Was thinking that in reality if we sell RVW then are we going to invest the money into a new number 1 striker or another squad forward? A forward to get ahead of jerome and be number 1 has got to be £10 million in the ridiculous current market surely? If that is the case then id rather take the punt in him in a more attacking formation and keep him....

Also he had a fairly alright season last year apparently, played as a 2nd forward and main striker. There''s quite an interesting interview from the St etienne boss on YouTube who speaks about how intelligent he is, how good his moment and control is. A little extreme but also said he''s similar style to bergkamp. If scouts and managers can consistently see this then I still think we haven''t seen all he has to offer.

[BroadstairsR 2,164]

This saga has become one of the biggest problems in the Club''s recent transfer history.

First there was the initial £8m hit, our biggest ever, then there were the wages on top of this and all compounded by the contribution it all made to our eventual relegation when we expected so much more.

Next the highly satisfactory St. Etienne arrangement did not fructify and one has to assume that a certain amount of face-saving gloss was put on this by our Club.

Then, and most surprising of all, Sporting Lisbon did not want their hero back sufficiently enough to adhere to the players expectations in wages (which ironically had been inflated by us.)

t is now looking increasingly likely that Rikki will be on the books come the start of the season and at the expense of the wages bill and possibly at the expense of the additional striker, that we are all hoping for, due to pressures of finances and limitations of squad places.

On the bright side, the conundrum of his worth or otherwise could finally be solved and without his three betes noir (excuse my French) of Chris Hughton, Robert Snodgrass and David Stockwell we might, at least, stand some chance of getting some value from the signing.

On the other hand, if the RVW factor again contributes to our relegation, one way or another, then it''s cost to the club could amount to the biggest financial disaster in the history of NCFC.

[Miss Bum Bum 0]

For every decent decision McNally makes he makes about 20 poor ones. His signing of this guy and our subsequent actions has just proven he struggles as a CEO in the transfer market.

This side of the role needs to be transfered to a heavy weight Director of Football who can work with Neil to make sure what we do in the transfer window is much more professionaly managed.

 

 

[A Load of Squit 5,162]

[quote user="Sir Anthony Blunt"]

For every decent decision McNally makes he makes about 20 poor ones. His signing of this guy and our subsequent actions has just proven he struggles as a CEO in the transfer market.

This side of the role needs to be transfered to a heavy weight Director of Football who can work with Neil to make sure what we do in the transfer window is much more professionaly managed.

 

 

[/quote]

For every decent post you make, you make 2,000,000 poor ones, McNally wins!

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Sir Anthony Blunt wrote the following post at 20/07/2015 8:23 AM:

For every decent decision McNally makes he makes about 20 poor ones. His signing of this guy and our subsequent actions has just proven he struggles as a CEO in the transfer market.

This side of the role needs to be transfered to a heavy weight Director of Football who can work with Neil to make sure what we do in the transfer window is much more professionaly managed.

Mmm a heavyweight eh, now nobody would ever think of describing McNally as a heavyweight; would they?😛

[ron obvious 1,502]

On a side note, I would take issue with Hooper being the best finisher at the club. I remember his first first goal being superb & thinking yes, we''ve found our quality striker at last. He then made a complete hash of his next couple of excellent chances before scoring a cracker again.

He certainly didn''t look like a quality finisher at Cambridge, completely mishitting a good chance when in the clear & under no pressure.

So, although he can produce some impressive goals, for me he is far too inconsistent to be called our best finisher. I''d say Jerome is better, & even Grabban not a lot worse in reality.

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

Do people generally believe that McNally actually goes and scouts players, recommends them to the manager and then buys them??

I laugh when I read these posts and how DMc gets the blame for everything.

I think it''s fair to assume that a SCOUT recommended RVW to the manager, he probably went to watch him play (hopefully more then once), saw something he liked and then confirmed to DMc that he would like to buy.

The only bit of this that DMc would have been involved in would have been the negotiations.

I appreciate that some on here want to blame him for every thing that goes wrong, but come on.....

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

For all those saying ''it''s up to AN to decide over RvW'' - Norwich almost sold him to Sporting before AN had ever met him. If Ricky had accepted terms then he would never had returned to training with Norwich and AN wouldn''t have had his ''Seb chat'' with him.

I still think the club will sell Ricky if they get the chance, regardless of what Neil wants to do.

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

I blame Tom Cavendish

[Trevor Hockey's Beard 527]

If what we need is a heavyweight then I suggest we sign up Steve Bruce for the role... and pay him in rolls.

[Miss Bum Bum 0]

He is to light weight he was bounced all over the place by the Cambridge players on Friday night.

[Nuff Said 5,140]

[quote user="Rich T The Biscuit"]Do people generally believe that McNally actually goes and scouts players, recommends them to the manager and then buys them??

I laugh when I read these posts and how DMc gets the blame for everything.

I think it''s fair to assume that a SCOUT recommended RVW to the manager, he probably went to watch him play (hopefully more then once), saw something he liked and then confirmed to DMc that he would like to buy.

The only bit of this that DMc would have been involved in would have been the negotiations.

I appreciate that some on here want to blame him for every thing that goes wrong, but come on.....[/quote]I completely agree. We all know everything that goes wrong is Delia''s fault. [:)]

[Alex Moss 2,165]

So Bethnal, what you''re saying is even if Alex Neil likes what he sees and decides Ricky''s going nowhere (and I''m of the opinion Ricky now also wants to stay, perhaps the real reason he didn''t agree to Sporting''s offer?), McNally etc will undermine Neil''s decision regardless and sell him?. Seriously???. I really can''t see that happening at all for very obvious reasons.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

I can see that happening Alex, the fact they tried to sell him before AN met him, when they could have waited a week to let AN give him the once over suggests that the decision has already been made.

If AN stamps his feet and says he will be a starter week-in week-out (very unlikely you would imagine) then the board would probably be happy to let him stay - but I doubt the people with their hands of the cash will be happy to have the club''s highest ever earner being 4th choice striker. AN is a pragmatic man, he also won''t want that as that money could be used to bring in a player better than anyone currently at the club.

Managers are over ruled at every club in every league fairly regularly - it is something they are very use to and they aren''t so childish they will throw all their toys out of the pram and sit in the corner crying. They are adults not spoilt kids and they understand the concept of money and that it isn''t limitless.

[BroadstairsR 2,164]

This window represents Alex Neil''s biggest test in the transfer market so far. He is bound to tread with caution.

However, the RVW saga represents a big ask for a rookie in the English game, as he still is, and a newbie into the financial nonsensicals of the Premier League, as he surely is.

First and foremost, he will want players of his own choosing(ref: the removal of both Turner and Lafferty from his squad.)

He has made the obvious noises so far about the player, but the unusual situation with RVW, brought about by the failure of all attempts to find him an alternative home, along with the expensive contractual commitments involved, means that the situation can be seen as somewhat of a ''forced marriage'' at the moment.

If , at the end of the day, Alex Neil doesn''t want Rikki Van Wolfswinkle in his squad then I would guess that he won''t be in it, and vice versa. McNasty would not be daft enough to go against this particular manager''s wishes.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

I don''t see why ''this particular manager'' would be any different to all the other managers who have had the wishes gone against.

In fact, a 34 year old with minimal experience would be considerably easier to go up against than some of the guys who have years of experience and are still over ruled.

I''m sure there will be a discussion, but as I''ve said a couple of times alrady by the club agreeing a fee before AN had met RvW, you do get a rather large clue which way the wind in blowing on this particular player.

[93vintage 16]

RVW''s move seems to hinge on money rather than subjective notions like success, failure or ability. His wages seem to be the stumbling block more than anything.I think Alex Neil''s priority up front is a target man, hence why Larrivey came over. But this happened after RVW''s Sporting deal broke down. Stating the obvious, it seems that buys in this postion aren''t dependent on RVW moving, but we can''t spend as much if he''s still here. I''m sure AN would like more money for a target man and failure to sell RVW would probably mean we have to reshuffle with a view to playing him. I suspect that one of Hooper, Grabban and Lafferty will exit if it looks like RVW can''t be sold, but a lot depends on who might be arriving.The club is in a bit of a jam on this situation, and may have to play the hand it''s been dealt. Another loan could just be kicking the can down the road.

[BroadstairsR 2,164]

"I don''t see why ''this particular manager'' would be any different to all the other managers who have had the wishes gone against."

I do. Timing as much as anything.

Besides, Alex Neil comes over, to me at least, as a particularly tough, single-minded individual who likes to have things done his way or not at all. That is the perceived platform of his success surely?

Neither Gunn, nor Hughton nor Adams SEEMED to exhibit bucket loads of those particular characteristics. Paul Lambert did, and look what happened there.

Fabio Capello, for what it''s worth, left a far more highly profiled job for similar reasons and many others have also in the past.

Having said that, MCNally will be far more aware of his manager''s resolve than we can ever be and I would assume that both sides of the issue will be fully aired, whatever the various permutations are.

Any sort of compromise is hardly ideal though.

[Google Bot 3,275]

Bethnal - if the manager wants to keep him, the board wouldn''t sell - that''s crazy talk.

Sure, if he was a guy in demand and there were offers coming in above his valuation this could happen, as you say in that regard AN is no different than any other manager as money/common ''business'' sense talks.

However, i think they would have belief in AN if he felt that Ricky could be an important player for us - they would go with it regardless. Obviously it affects his budget on new players, that''s all, and that''s something they will be weighing up over pre-season.

The bigger issue is that AN takes to him on a personal level, and goes against the board in wanting him to stay, then a conflict of interest occurs.

But even then, i can''t see AN losing that battle - if he gets his teeth into something, he''ll make it succeed - i honestly believe that, he doesn''t strike me as the sort of guy who blindly sits ''wishing'' things to happen, i think he ''makes'' them happen. Unlike those other pricks we had praying on the sidelines week in week out.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]I can see that happening Alex, the fact they tried to sell him before AN met him, when they could have waited a week to let AN give him the once over suggests that the decision has already been made.

If AN stamps his feet and says he will be a starter week-in week-out (very unlikely you would imagine) then the board would probably be happy to let him stay - but I doubt the people with their hands of the cash will be happy to have the club''s highest ever earner being 4th choice striker. AN is a pragmatic man, he also won''t want that as that money could be used to bring in a player better than anyone currently at the club.

Managers are over ruled at every club in every league fairly regularly - it is something they are very use to and they aren''t so childish they will throw all their toys out of the pram and sit in the corner crying. They are adults not spoilt kids and they understand the concept of money and that it isn''t limitless.[/quote]Bethnal, you''re right that managers are often overruled. Worthington wanted to spend money we didn''t have and quite rightly got overruled by the board.In this case I don''t know for a fact, but I suspect Neil was happily involved in the decision to try to sell van Wolfswinkel to Sporting. You don''t need to meet a player to make a footballing judgment, and Neil had five months to assess van Wolfswinkel, by looking at videos of his Norwich matches, getting reports on hs progress (or lack of it) at St-Etienne, and talking to the coaching staff at Colney. And factoring all that into the financial positioin (in terms of money available for transfers and wages) as outlined by McNally.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

I''m not just talking about managers being overruled from a Norwich context, who have traditionally been very manager centric - but across Premier League clubs.

Jose Mourinho, one of the most successful managers in the world was very publicly overruled this summer over a player transfer.

I wouldn''t claim to know the ins and outs at Norwich, but just going by trends across Premier League clubs I would presume that AN isn''t as all-powerful as many fans want to believe. Some comments on here read like he has magical powers - the cult of personality building around him is crazy.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

The way I see it is if Sir Alex decides that RVW is worth his amount in the player budget then nobody would have a problem. But if he wants some or all of that money for other signings then RVW has to go.

Surely the only way Sir Alex will be overruled by the board is if he wants it both ways, to keep his cake and eat it.