Ricky van Wolfswinkel

[jb 0]

That''s great to hear RF, and I''m sure he''d add a lot to the team... just a little concerned that we''d be putting all our eggs in one basket, and to my mind there are other positions that we could be strengthening.  The option to play 4-4-2 (or any other 2-striker formation) would be a real plus, but without a really strong ''all-rounder'' in midfield i think we''ll struggle to create too many chances for whoever is up front.  Maybe Tettey can be that box-to-box type player, but I''m just naturally a bit concerned about splurging all our money on only half the solution to our current problem... still, In McNally We Trust, and I''ll look forward to seeing RvW play if he does sign.  Exciting times!

[Hog 0]

Hi, yes some of us do know ex players, staff and even ex managers...but now as always they never release this sort of info.

[Hog 0]

Lol in fact the last inside info I got was that Goran Maric was signing!

[ricardo 7,384]

[quote user="Polen"]

Good morning.

Any news there?

Don''t you guys know journalists or a son of the club staff?? that can provide intel about this?

here it''s on a standby, as you already know, there was a primary offer that was refused.

Don''t believe we are going to sell bellow the 10M pounds (12 million euros), mainly because of the Fund which has 65% of the player.

 

PS - As i mentioned since the first post. I came here with the best intentions. In order to know if you had reliable informations from your side regarding this business.

It was just to confirm the rumours (and some are more than that) we had on our side.

PS2 - First: He is a very good player. made 24 yesterday. has good skills. 2 years ago we paid 4.5 M pounds. it was a very good deal for us. But I understand the risk of paying 10M £ nowadays. If it was the other way around, I would be very sceptic about this.

[/quote]Good morning Mario.No news here. We are sceptical that NCFC would pay £10-12 million for a player when our record fee is less than half that figure.Having said that, we would very much like to buy RVW and we hope it happens soon.

[Renskay 36]

The way I''m reading this deal is that Norwich would pay Sporting Lisbon £5m upfront in a structured deal that may well bring it up to £10m-£13m over a number of months/years.

This is the only way I see us being able to spend this amount of money on one player.

[Polen 0]

As I mention previously. That''s a deal you need to make wih the fund.

For what I can tell, no offers below 10M pounds will be accepted. around 4M £ will go for the club and the rest for the fund.

Dont believe the fund will accept that kind of business (according to the player performance, objectives, etc) but payments overtime, don''t see why not.

[Joanna Grey 0]

[quote user="Renskay"]The way I''m reading this deal is that Norwich would pay Sporting Lisbon £5m upfront in a structured deal that may well bring it up to £10m-£13m over a number of months/years. This is the only way I see us being able to spend this amount of money on one player.[/quote]

I think it''s more to do with the fact that SL only own 35% of RVW, if he is valued at 13 million Euros they will get 4.5 million Euros. The question is are the Investment Companies allowed to carry their 65% ownership through his transfer and cash in on any prospective sale or does everything have to be finalised in this deal? If no then we have to find the total purchase price (somewhere between 10 and 15 million Euros), if yes then we only have to find somewhere between 3.5 and 5.25 million Euros to pay off SL (but if RVW''s stock rises expect the IC to push for his sale when they think he is at his peak value).

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Joanna Grey"]

[quote user="Renskay"]The way I''m reading this deal is that Norwich would pay Sporting Lisbon £5m upfront in a structured deal that may well bring it up to £10m-£13m over a number of months/years. This is the only way I see us being able to spend this amount of money on one player.[/quote]

I think it''s more to do with the fact that SL only own 35% of RVW, if he is valued at 13 million Euros they will get 4.5 million Euros. The question is are the Investment Companies allowed to carry their 65% ownership through his transfer and cash in on any prospective sale or does everything have to be finalised in this deal? If no then we have to find the total purchase price (somewhere between 10 and 15 million Euros), if yes then we only have to find somewhere between 3.5 and 5.25 million Euros to pay off SL (but if RVW''s stock rises expect the IC to push for his sale when they think he is at his peak value).

[/quote]

 

As I understand it this is effectively third-party ownership, and that is allowed in Portugal but not in England. As was shown in the QPR-Faurlin case (although QPR in practice got away with it). We would have to buy 100 per cent of the player.

[Sussexyellow 55]

[quote user="Polen"]
he''s a very smart player.  he combines very well with the player next to him like pass & go(dont know the word), he has good instincts. retains well the ball and hes good playing outside the box, going from the middle to the sidelines.

Unfortunately Sporting is having two terrible seasons (6 coaches in 2 latest seasons). horrible team play. he basically plays alone in the front because we are playing with 2 wide wingers but the midfielders dont approach the area to compensate, so a lot of time he receives the ball and the closest guy is like 20 meters away from him...

[/quote]

 

Re Polen''s last paragraph is that not a bit reminiscent of our own current playing style.

 

So lets assume, and I still have major doubts, that we get RVW. Is Hughton going to change the team set up to 4-4-2, or 4-4-1-1? In which case it would look as though Wes would be the one to give way. On the other hand if we are going to continue with one up top is there not a concern that we could be buying a talented and expensive square peg for our round hole? Hopefully the former or better still the option to play in a number of formations.

 

Having read this though I think we need to have hopes on two fronts, that the RVW deal comes off and that there is nothing in the Holty to leave in this transfer window rumour.

[Joanna Grey 0]

"As I understand it this is effectively third-party ownership, and that is allowed in Portugal but not in England. As was shown in the QPR-Faurlin case (although QPR in practice got away with it). We would have to buy 100 per cent of the player."

Thanks Purple, that''s good and bad news. Good in that if we get him and his value rises the decision when and if to sell is our''s alone. Bad in that we will have to spunk the majority of our rumoured transfer budget on one player (we could have presumably got a Hooper or Graham as well if we only had to buy out SL).

[Lets be aving you! 0]

Agreed Purple, that''s how I read the situation. The current third-party ownership arrangements would have to come to an end for us to be able to acquire the player legally.

[pablofarmer 0]

Does anyone know why we don''t do 3rd Party in the EPL when it appears to work for other countries?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="pablofarmer"]Does anyone know why we don''t do 3rd Party in the EPL when it appears to work for other countries?[/quote]It doesn''t work well elsewhere - and UEFA is moving to ban the whole practise. It allows shadowy figures like Joorabchian an access into football whilst not being a licensed agent.The sooner it is stopped the better.

[The Walking Man 13]

Looks like UEFA are pushing for an outright ban on 3rd party ownership.

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/aboutuefa/organisation/executivecommittee/news/newsid=1906435.html

[Polen 0]

it''s a way of fighting huge club debts (if you dont have the money, you dont buy it) and some business that may not be that legal. you can have a fund register in Cayman islands, for example, you dont know if the owners are guns dealers or drug cartels, etc...

its easier to have a competitive team (best players) but I totally agree with your model...

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Joanna Grey"]"As I understand it this is effectively third-party ownership, and that is allowed in Portugal but not in England. As was shown in the QPR-Faurlin case (although QPR in practice got away with it). We would have to buy 100 per cent of the player." Thanks Purple, that''s good and bad news. Good in that if we get him and his value rises the decision when and if to sell is our''s alone. Bad in that we will have to spunk the majority of our rumoured transfer budget on one player (we could have presumably got a Hooper or Graham as well if we only had to buy out SL).[/quote]

 

Joanna, it is all very interesting. We must have been aware of the third-party ownership when we started getting serious about the player, and so knew we would have to spend a great deal of money, and presumably are prepared to, even if we don''t match the supposed asking price.

But it is not just that; by confirming bids for Graham and Hooper (I still think he is the likeliest of the three to arrive if it is only one) we announced that we had at least £10m to spend on transfer fees. Now, if we don''t spend at least most of that, there will be hell to play if we get relegated. There have been occasions in the past - such as Windass and Ashton in that summer as opposed to the winter - when we failed to buy a player, but in neither case was it at all obvious the money was there to be spent. Now it is.

[First Wizard 0]

So our dear City are going to smash, nay pulverise, their transfer record are they?

 

[img]http://www.carlyjamison.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/gullible-oranges.jpg[/img]

[Redders Right Foot 22]

If you say ''wiz'' slowly it sounds like ''binner''

[Polen 0]

 

yesterday, someone mention that. what means/is binner???

[Polen 0]

please delete...already found what it means...

nice nickname for the guys by the way...

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Javiers Deaf Translator"]If you say ''wiz'' slowly it sounds like ''binner''[/quote]

 

Strang how ''binner'' is aplied to the realist City fan  on here isn''t it?

 

God, they''ll be some disappointed chumps on Febuary the 1st.

[Icecream Snow 761]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Joanna Grey"]"As I understand it this is effectively third-party ownership, and that is allowed in Portugal but not in England. As was shown in the QPR-Faurlin case (although QPR in practice got away with it). We would have to buy 100 per cent of the player." Thanks Purple, that''s good and bad news. Good in that if we get him and his value rises the decision when and if to sell is our''s alone. Bad in that we will have to spunk the majority of our rumoured transfer budget on one player (we could have presumably got a Hooper or Graham as well if we only had to buy out SL).[/quote]

 

Joanna, it is all very interesting. We must have been aware of the third-party ownership when we started getting serious about the player, and so knew we would have to spend a great deal of money, and presumably are prepared to, even if we don''t match the supposed asking price. But it is not just that; by confirming bids for Graham and Hooper (I still think he is the likeliest of the three to arrive if it is only one) we announced that we had at least £10m to spend on transfer fees. Now, if we don''t spend at least most of that, there will be hell to play if we get relegated. There have been occasions in the past - such as Windass and Ashton in that summer as opposed to the winter - when we failed to buy a player, but in neither case was it at all obvious the money was there to be spent. Now it is.

[/quote]

 

I think it''s more a case, that whilst they are bidding for players, they doubt the bids will come to fruitition.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Icecream Snow"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Joanna Grey"]"As I understand it this is effectively third-party ownership, and that is allowed in Portugal but not in England. As was shown in the QPR-Faurlin case (although QPR in practice got away with it). We would have to buy 100 per cent of the player." Thanks Purple, that''s good and bad news. Good in that if we get him and his value rises the decision when and if to sell is our''s alone. Bad in that we will have to spunk the majority of our rumoured transfer budget on one player (we could have presumably got a Hooper or Graham as well if we only had to buy out SL).[/quote]

 

Joanna, it is all very interesting. We must have been aware of the third-party ownership when we started getting serious about the player, and so knew we would have to spend a great deal of money, and presumably are prepared to, even if we don''t match the supposed asking price.

But it is not just that; by confirming bids for Graham and Hooper (I still think he is the likeliest of the three to arrive if it is only one) we announced that we had at least £10m to spend on transfer fees. Now, if we don''t spend at least most of that, there will be hell to play if we get relegated. There have been occasions in the past - such as Windass and Ashton in that summer as opposed to the winter - when we failed to buy a player, but in neither case was it at all obvious the money was there to be spent. Now it is.

[/quote]

 

I think it''s more a case, that whilst they are bidding for players, they doubt the bids will come to fruitition.

[/quote]

 

But what if the bids for Hooper and Graham had both been accepted? Or that for RvW? And even if there has been  fake bid in there my point stands - whether we like it or not that figure of at least £10m is now fixed in the minds of fans.

[ncfcstar 289]

[quote user="Wiz"]

[quote user="Javiers Deaf Translator"]If you say ''wiz'' slowly it sounds like ''binner''[/quote]

 

Strang how ''binner'' is aplied to the realist City fan  on here isn''t it?

 

God, they''ll be some disappointed chumps on Febuary the 1st.

[/quote]You''re hilarious Wiz, I''ve never met someone who is so in denial, in fact you''ve been there for so long you''re almost in the Mediterranean.

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="ncfcstar"][quote user="Wiz"]

[quote user="Javiers Deaf Translator"]If you say ''wiz'' slowly it sounds like ''binner''[/quote]

 

Strang how ''binner'' is aplied to the realist City fan  on here isn''t it?

 

God, they''ll be some disappointed chumps on Febuary the 1st.

[/quote]You''re hilarious Wiz, I''ve never met someone who is so in denial, in fact you''ve been there for so long you''re almost in the Mediterranean.[/quote]As I said yesterday Wiz.[img]http://www.flashbytes.co.uk/images/wiz.gif[/img]

[Vazzza 62]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

But it is not just that; by confirming bids for Graham and Hooper (I still think he is the likeliest of the three to arrive if it is only one) we announced that we had at least £10m to spend on transfer fees. Now, if we don''t spend at least most of that, there will be hell to play if we get relegated. There have been occasions in the past - such as Windass and Ashton in that summer as opposed to the winter - when we failed to buy a player, but in neither case was it at all obvious the money was there to be spent. Now it is.

[/quote]

 

I can''t remember seeing anywhere that our 2x £5m bids were cash up front. Could the deals not have been worth £5m, with less up-front and add-ons, and therefore we could have much less to spend now.

[Alex Moss 2,165]

I wonder if all this 3rd party ownership (or whatever it is) is the reason why he''s not been bought by previously interested Premier League clubs? Hence Hughton admitting there''d been interest but he wasn''t sure how far that interest had gone (once we''d realised the complications of any potential deal). I''d love to see RvW here, but can''t help but feel this has just got totally overhyped on Twitter etc (by fans, not the club) and unfortunately that will more than likely lead to many disappointed City supporters. I''m treating it as a non-runner now, I also think Hooper isn''t overly fussed about joining us either (again, not NCFC''s fault). Gonna be a frustrating window come Feb 1st I think, but I do believe McNally etc are doing everything they can to make the right deals happen.

[Joanna Grey 0]

Alex, you can''t blame the fans or the Club, it''s the work of Agents and the media who are responsible for the hype.

[Alex Moss 2,165]

[quote user="Joanna Grey"]Alex, you can''t blame the fans or the Club, it''s the work of Agents and the media who are responsible for the hype.[/quote]

As you can see by my post I certainly am not blaming the club whatsoever, Joanna - completely the opposite - and am not having a go at fellow fans either - just merely pointing out that we the fans have snowballed the hype on Twitter etc to a point that I think all hell will break loose on here if we don''t sign him!. Some dubious ''journos'' planted the seed yes, but other than Hughton saying RvM''s someone that we''ve shown interest in, then we''ve heard nothing whatsoever from RvM''s agent or Sporting Lisbon officially regarding bids etc as far as I''m aware. In short, I just don''t want to see fellow City supporters take a big fall if we don''t sign RvM, I''d love him to be one of the more realistic options but I''m not so sure that''s the case.

[Joanna Grey 0]

I understand Alex, it''s just that the real ''realists'' know that our Club is doing it''s utmost to bring in the type of player who appears to be deadly around the penalty box whereas Wiz''s ''realists'' seem to think it is some ploy to sell tickets. CH has identified players whom he assumes would relish a chance to shine in the PL (RW, Hooper and Kamara) or who want to get more regular football (Graham). It appears that they fit our budget but McNally, etc. will want to get them as cheap as possible. If other Clubs gazump us or the selling Club does not play ball then that is not our Club''s fault, fans who suspect some other sinister motive are just idiots.