Joaquín Larrivey

[ZLF 271]

all a bit odd but there must be a good reason having agreed a fee and shown him around the club for us to have turned away;  

next it is.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]Looking at the types of goals that Larrivey has scored he seems heavily reliant upon others creating clear chances for him. Much like RvW in that respect but Larrivey is stronger.Larrivey seems like Elmander, RvW, Lafferty and Becchio all rolled into one.[/quote]Mr McNally must have read that ;)

[93vintage 16]

I wouldn''t be keen on Jelavic given his injury record. It''s hard to know if the lack of business done is because we''re in a jam waiting for other players to move, or because we''ve not bothered to invest in a proper foreign scouting network.It''s probably a bit of both, but with millions being spent each year I think it would be wise for the club to get its act together regarding the latter.

[lharman7 39]

Im guessing maybe Larrivey turned up with a massive big time charlie attitude which we probably know AN wouldn''t have liked. So then it was thanks but no thanks. Just a guess!

[Alex Moss 2,165]

Cheers Hog and Mr Angry for your info - looked into it but FM not compatible with my iPad apparently!

[Hairy Canary 668]

Could be any number of reasons. For me I wouldn''t be surprised if this was linked to RVW failing to agree terms.

With him and latterly still on the books and AN preferring to play with one striker I can''t see any more front men coming into the squad unless we can shift someone first.

We won''t be looking to put more of our wages bill into front players who have very little chance of playing.

[Hairy Canary 668]

Lafferty not latterly. Bloody auto correct!

[clarkey1972 0]

I agree - probably linked to RVW stalling.

I expect that deal to go through sometime this week and then a few deals to get tied up pretty quickly for City.

Not that I am in the know, but i think McNally and his agent will put the pressure on him to ship out.

[lake district canary 4,531]

The Larrivey thig has to be AN not wanting him.  Personality wrong, attitude not what he requires or whatever - it shows what we all know - that AN won''t stand for nonsense and knows what he wants - and maybe more importantly, knows what he doesn''t want and is prepared to put his foot down.

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

Completely agree.

The agent is only cheesed off as he''s not getting his cut of the deal!

[Indy 3,283]

All speculation, could be we can''t afford the wages without shipping out a few players.

Whatever it was it''s pretty strange to go so far to pull the plug without good reason.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Indy"]All speculation, could be we can''t afford the wages without shipping out a few players.

Whatever it was it''s pretty strange to go so far to pull the plug without good reason.[/quote]Speculation, yes,  but it is reasoned speculation. The wages thing is a non-issue - it would not have gone as far as it did if there was going to be an issue with wages.   It happens all the time in interview processes, a person passes all the requirements for a job, goes all the way through the process to meet the boss and the boss doesn''t like what he sees.  The only way to avoid that situation is to let the boss choose the players he wants in the first place, but that doesn''t seem to happen these days with that side of things delegated to player recruitment staff identifying players.  

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Thank f uck it fell through. An unknown 30 year old with a poor record coming to a new country. No thanks.

[Canarywayne 0]

whether he was a good deal or not a good deal, its just another story following on from the brady debarcle that''s paints us as a club in poor light and will almost make us as undealable as a club.

Another case of McNally''s ego overtaking what is good for the club.

[AJ 1,218]

does anyone know if Larrivey actually came here and had a medical ect.?

It was mentioned in the press that he was here, but old photo''s circulating on Twitter make me question whether he was actually here at all?

Either way if we''ve decided not to proceed I''m sure there''s a very good reason. If it was a big name we were missing out on I''d be more concerned but there''s plenty of other options for this type of player at that kind of price.

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

Another case of Mc''Nallys ego?

The club has not made any sort of statement about this guy or Brady so it''s cutely the contrary, Mc''Nally hasn''t done anything with either of these.

Bruce shot his mouth off as he wanted more money for Brady, and the agent is cheesed off as he''s missed his percent from this deal.

Every respect to AN and DM if they have pulled the plug, clearly there is something amiss with this guy so better to not get someone than get a problem.

[Indy 3,283]

LDC you could be right but let me point out Turner, Bennett, RVW are all still here all commanding big salaries from the club, if we don''t off load them then they will still need to be paid!

I believe our last season was in the region of 47 million on salaries, it will be there about a again now with the addition of Mullumbu. As you pointed out during interviews the salary is one of the last points to be discussed and could be his agent & him wanted more than was on the table just as much as AN didn''t want him! Let''s get this right , he would have been on the wanted list and if the club didn''t scout him including HR on his personality then the club didn''t do a good job scouting IMO.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Indy"]LDC you could be right but let me point out Turner, Bennett, RVW are all still here all commanding big salaries from the club, if we don''t off load them then they will still need to be paid!

I believe our last season was in the region of 47 million on salaries, it will be there about a again now with the addition of Mullumbu. As you pointed out during interviews the salary is one of the last points to be discussed and could be his agent & him wanted more than was on the table just as much as AN didn''t want him! Let''s get this right , he would have been on the wanted list and if the club didn''t scout him including HR on his personality then the club didn''t do a good job scouting IMO.[/quote]

That is a fair point.   The problem we seemed to have with RVW was that someone else scouted and pursued him and he wasn''t actually a good fit for what we wanted - but where Hughton may have been seen to be weak in not seeing that or resisting it, AN is definitely not weak and if it is a case of him saying no, then that is just another example of him being his own man and a strong leader.

[mrs miggins 0]

RVW was Hughton''s responsibility. He tried to get him when he was at Newcastle but failed in his bid, then when he came here he managed to get him, unfortunately.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Indy"]LDC you could be right but let me point out Turner, Bennett, RVW are all still here all commanding big salaries from the club, if we don''t off load them then they will still need to be paid!

I believe our last season was in the region of 47 million on salaries, it will be there about a again now with the addition of Mullumbu. As you pointed out during interviews the salary is one of the last points to be discussed and could be his agent & him wanted more than was on the table just as much as AN didn''t want him! Let''s get this right , he would have been on the wanted list and if the club didn''t scout him including HR on his personality then the club didn''t do a good job scouting IMO.[/quote]

That is a fair point.   The problem we seemed to have with RVW was that someone else scouted and pursued him and he wasn''t actually a good fit for what we wanted - but where Hughton may have been seen to be weak in not seeing that or resisting it, AN is definitely not weak and if it is a case of him saying no, then that is just another example of him being his own man and a strong leader.

[/quote]What do you base that idea on? One English club that was seriously linked with van Wolfswinkel before us was Newcastle United in 2010 when Hughton was their manager.As to why we seemingly pulled the plug on the Larrivey deal I know no more than anyone else. It could be that Neil was responsible, but for that to make sense he would have had to have been kept out of the loop in terms of targets until late on, and all the indications are that he is having his say - and a definitive say - much earlier in the process than that.The likeliest explanation is, as others have said, that we suddenly found another and more preferred target looked like becoming available.

[Indy 3,283]

To be fair to Hughton we were all excited about getting RVW and we thought we were getting a bargain at the time! Didn''t work out.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

LDC will defend Hughton until the day he dies. Some people just hate being proved wrong.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Indy"]To be fair to Hughton we were all excited about getting RVW and we thought we were getting a bargain at the time! Didn''t work out.[/quote]This is one of my pet hates, and particularly on Mondays![:@] The "we all" post.  It actually means the poster thought "X", and some others also thought "X" but when "X" turns out to be wrong the claim is made that everybody thought "X". Even though they didn''t.Not all posters thought those things about van Wolfswinkel, just as - to choose another recent example - not all were sceptical or even dubious about Alex Neil''s appointment.

[Indy 3,283]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Indy"]To be fair to Hughton we were all excited about getting RVW and we thought we were getting a bargain at the time! Didn''t work out.[/quote]This is one of my pet hates, and particularly on Mondays![:@] The "we all" post.  It actually means the poster thought "X", and some others also thought "X" but when "X" turns out to be wrong the claim is made that everybody thought "X". Even though they didn''t.Not all posters thought those things about van Wolfswinkel, just as - to choose another recent example - not all were sceptical or even dubious about Alex Neil''s appointment.[/quote]

Sorry Purple but don''t see your point

http://services.pinkun.com/forums/mobilepinkun/cs/forums/2856265/ShowPost.aspx

[Molly Windley 76]

Joacquin Larrivey    -   Joacquin Departey

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Indy"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Indy"]To be fair to Hughton we were all excited about getting RVW and we thought we were getting a bargain at the time! Didn''t work out.[/quote]This is one of my pet hates, and particularly on Mondays![:@] The "we all" post.  It actually means the poster thought "X", and some others also thought "X" but when "X" turns out to be wrong the claim is made that everybody thought "X". Even though they didn''t.Not all posters thought those things about van Wolfswinkel, just as - to choose another recent example - not all were sceptical or even dubious about Alex Neil''s appointment.[/quote]

Sorry Purple but don''t see your point

http://services.pinkun.com/forums/mobilepinkun/cs/forums/2856265/ShowPost.aspx[/quote]I thought it was fairly clear. I am baffled by you posting that link to an old thread, because it actually makes my point. For example, from one poster (Big Ron''s Brain) there was this very perceptive assessement, which mirrored my vague doubt, also later having looked at a video of his goals, about van Wolfswinkel:"Looks like an instinctive 6 yard box poacher.  Also a good penalty taker

but that won''t help us much.  Lots of the clipped goals look like the

pass made the goal, allthough the finishes are super sharp no doubt. 

Will he get that much space in the Premier and cope with tight marking

and physically aggresive defenders?"As to my contributions to that thread, the only footballing comment I can see me having made was:"I have no idea about this particular player."The rest were comments about  van Wolfswinkel being part-owned and such like.

[Indy 3,283]

Nit picking Purple and yet another poster using a flippant comment to have a go! There''s a surprise! There are a lot of older posters on here who are just waiting for their opportunity to take posters to task.

Bored with it now. Ok so nearly everyone was over the moon with RVW before he signed so let''s not start having a go at LDC about his support of Hughton.

[Indy 3,283]

By the way I didn''t bring back just posted the link.

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Indy"]By the way I didn''t bring back just posted the link.[/quote]

 

No-one said you bought it back.

 

 

[Indy 3,283]

No again thanks for the telling off! I just said I didn''t bring it back that''s all!