Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kangaroo Court

Is the RvW deal a lose-lose situation?

Recommended Posts

I''m talking about the option to buy at the end of the loan.

Scenario 1: RvW has a brilliant season, scores 20+ goals and his value goes back up to £8.5 million. We lose as St Etienne take up the option to buy and get him on the cheap.

Scenario 2: RvW has an awful season, scores one goal or gets injured. St Etienne don''t take up the option and he comes back to us worth a couple of million at best.

We shouldn''t give them this option to buy. Either just a loan or they buy him outright. We can only lose from the current deal (as reported).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without knowing exactly how the contract has been structured, we have no real way of knowing.Didn''t this all come from a journo, and it was along the lines of " It is believed there is a buy clause, thought to be about 6 million Euros."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO this is just wrong: RVW will always have last season''s failure on his cv, so he is currently worth even less and I can''t see that one decent season is going to suddenly make us ''lose'' (any more) millions on the deal - he will need to do it well and for a longer period. Obviously if he flops in France, he is worth even less than now and it is better that he wasn''t with us if he does.

I''d have loved him to stay and come good, but for me that is a romantic view - I really can''t, hand on heart, see him coming out on top in the long, physically more demanding, rough and tumble of a Champs season. With a business head on it might be best for him to try his luck elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think our management team (im a saint etienne fan) won''t take him unless he has the option, we have not taken on a loan without option for years now. Just curious to know how much this clause will be. To be honest, i think his bad season can be overturned, and I agree it is not a good situation for you... but I suppose it comes from RvW wanting to leave in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="morty"]And another thing to remember is, David Mcnally isn''t stupid.[/quote]

Who bought the useless turd in the first place oh yes it was McNally. Of course he is a dim wit. Who employed hughton oh yes it was McNally. Who appointed a radio commentator as boss oh yes it was McNally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who helped get Lambert. Who helped get his signings. Who helped keep us in the Prem for 3 seasons. Who helped clear our crippling debts?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Herman wrote the following post at 03/08/2014 3:47 PM:

Who helped get Lambert. Who helped get his signings. Who helped keep us in the Prem for 3 seasons. Who helped clear our crippling debts?????

Stephen Fry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robin Hood canary wrote the following post at 03/08/2014 3:51 PM:

Who couldn''t organise a pre season for, who forced lambert out the club, who can''t except it is time to go.

Mcnasty is the problem for our club and not the solution

Delia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Robin Hood canary"]Who couldn''t organise a pre season for,probably the person hired to do it. Now unemployed hopefully. who forced lambert out the club,Lambert wanted to leave. Only a few halfwits can''t ACCEPT that. who can''t except it is time to go.You?

Mcnasty is the problem for our club and not the solution[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s certainly a win from our perspective. RvW and Bassong were our most ineffective players last season. It represents a signal from the club that we are moving on from the disaster that was last season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Highland Canary"]It''s certainly a win from our perspective. RvW and Bassong were our most ineffective players last season. It represents a signal from the club that we are moving on from the disaster that was last season.[/quote]

I agree that from a footballing perspective it''s a win for us as RvW came to symbolise all that was wrong last season, but from a financial perspective it seems St Etienne are getting a win-win deal. I suppose the club are just desperate to get rid of him as this is the best (or only) deal on offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Kangaroo Court"][quote user="Highland Canary"]It''s certainly a win from our perspective. RvW and Bassong were our most ineffective players last season. It represents a signal from the club that we are moving on from the disaster that was last season.[/quote]

I agree that from a footballing perspective it''s a win for us as RvW came to symbolise all that was wrong last season, but from a financial perspective it seems St Etienne are getting a win-win deal. I suppose the club are just desperate to get rid of him as this is the best (or only) deal on offer.[/quote]as said by master mortimer..........as none of us know what the deal is then how can we make comment on that deal ?as to him going off on a seasons loan, that arrangement doesn''t seem to have hurt Rudd or Surmanso why not concentrate on the future instead of looking for something to attack the club with ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There will be a hefty loan fee along with the buy out clause....this team finished 4th in the top french league and are in europe too. It will be a good club for RVW to gain his confidence with.

It''s a no brainer for me his wages even after relegation will be too high for us to gamble on and if the club re-coup the majority we paid , it''s a win, win for all parties.

Good luck RVW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"][quote user="Kangaroo Court"][quote user="Highland Canary"]It''s certainly a win from our perspective. RvW and Bassong were our most ineffective players last season. It represents a signal from the club that we are moving on from the disaster that was last season.[/quote]

I agree that from a footballing perspective it''s a win for us as RvW came to symbolise all that was wrong last season, but from a financial perspective it seems St Etienne are getting a win-win deal. I suppose the club are just desperate to get rid of him as this is the best (or only) deal on offer.[/quote]as said by master mortimer..........as none of us know what the deal is then how can we make comment on that deal ?as to him going off on a seasons loan, that arrangement doesn''t seem to have hurt Rudd or Surmanso why not concentrate on the future instead of looking for something to attack the club with ?

[/quote]
I''m not "attacking" the club at all. What is this obsession that some people have about that? It''s normal for fans to debate the merits of a transfer.
You mention Rudd and Surman but neither of those flopped in the previous season, they just weren''t in the manager''s plans. I think a loan would be good but the buy-out clause is bad. The worst case scenario would be that he flops again in France and comes back worth almost nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you have no idea what the terms of that deal are then then why make presumptions that seek to put the club in a bad light ?Surman did have a bad season, given that he only played 4 times in the league the season before the Bournemouth loanNow why not concentrate on what is known rather than looking for stuff to attack the club with ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Kangaroo Court"][quote user="City1st"][quote user="Kangaroo Court"][quote user="Highland Canary"]It''s certainly a win from our perspective. RvW and Bassong were our most ineffective players last season. It represents a signal from the club that we are moving on from the disaster that was last season.[/quote] I agree that from a footballing perspective it''s a win for us as RvW came to symbolise all that was wrong last season, but from a financial perspective it seems St Etienne are getting a win-win deal. I suppose the club are just desperate to get rid of him as this is the best (or only) deal on offer.[/quote]

as said by master mortimer

..........as none of us know what the deal is then how can we make comment on that deal ?

as to him going off on a seasons loan, that arrangement doesn''t seem to have hurt Rudd or Surman

so why not concentrate on the future instead of looking for something to attack the club with ?




[/quote]


I''m not "attacking" the club at all. What is this obsession that some people have about that? It''s normal for fans to debate the merits of a transfer.


You mention Rudd and Surman but neither of those flopped in the previous season, they just weren''t in the manager''s plans. I think a loan would be good but the buy-out clause is bad. The worst case scenario would be that he flops again in France and comes back worth almost nothing.

[/quote]

Ah ha!...now it becomes clearer.......don''t worry, I think you''ll find it''s not "some people"......just this one particular pathetic,imbecilic individual...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Ah ha!...now it becomes clearer.......don''t worry, I think you''ll

find it''s not "some people"......just this one particular

pathetic,imbecilic individual...

"
oh dearyou are an angry little fella, aren''t younow any chance of telling us all about tha £65m the club hasn''t spent ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gotcha....don''t worry,i''ll be watching and monitoring this "pattern" of fans apparantly "attacking" the club when they offer a differing view to that of yours.

your displaying some traits of paranoia there?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
",i''ll be watching and monitoring this""your displaying some traits of paranoia"oh dearoh dearie, dear me

ps it''s you''re as in you are

pps you told us all that the club had not spent the £65m ........ any chance of a bit of background to this claim ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if the figures are right, it would be £4.5M on top of the loan fee which could be £2M+ fairly easily going by what we have reportedly paid for some loans in the past.If he is terrible for them it at least saved us from having an unhappy camper in the squad and the temptation to play a failing player. If he has a good season and they take up the option we get a good 50% return on a flop rather than watching him sit out his contract as no use to anyone.The option could also be a higher fee if we go up or even be a 2 way option where we could still pull out... just we can''t put the price up for that club... or perhaps can''t say no and then still sell within the next x windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that we paid a club record fee for a striker who scored 1 goal all season it could never be anything other than a lose-lose situation.

Right now we''d get diddly-squat for him. £4.5m next year would be decent money.

With the benefit of hindsight his value never was anywhere near £8.5m, that''s the bottom line. But we paid it, move on.

It''s not unusual for strikers to fail to live up to their price tag though. Especially if they are called either Darren (as in Bent) or Beckford (as in Jermaine) or worse still both, as in decent emergency goalkeeper but not quite what Dave Stringer had in mind when he paid a then club record fee ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there been a worse canary than rvw in canary history if measured by goals per pound spent. Answer is clearly no. Is he therefore the worst buy in our history?

He has to be up there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]yep....spelling corrections...always goes down a blast on any forum..

and yes the £65m and lack of this having currently been used to sign players was done with last night.[/quote]but you haven''tyou warbled about some link on the Daily Mail. but you did not actually explain in your own words what this this £65m is or how you know exactly what the club have spent ... or receivedbut that didn''t stop you from attacking the clubso why not take this opportunity to set the record straightwhat is this £65m ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"what this this £65m" ?!?!?.....spelling error ,I take it (see pathetic isn''t it?)

there you go with "attacking the club" again......I wonder what a psychotherapist would make of this paranoia.

..and point...which sadly needs labouring despite it already been discussed, is a simple equation of transfers in/out this summer.

but as you nailed your colours to the mast of not believing any transfer fees ,then that rather precludes you from that discussion....or indeed any other about transfer fees.

come to think of it, why would you even be on this one....you probably don''t even think we spent £8.5 on Van Wolfswinkel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]"what this this £65m" ?!?!?.....spelling error ,I take it (see pathetic isn''t it?)

there you go with "attacking the club" again......I wonder what a psychotherapist would make of this paranoia.

..and point...which sadly needs labouring despite it already been discussed, is a simple equation of transfers in/out this summer.

but as you nailed your colours to the mast of not believing any transfer fees ,then that rather precludes you from that discussion....or indeed any other about transfer fees.

come to think of it, why would you even be on this one....you probably don''t even think we spent £8.5 on Van Wolfswinkel[/quote]I asked about the £65m as it is the figure you originally claimed that we had not spent any of. However a bit later you changed your mind and claimed that amount was now to be paid  over three years. Then having (I presume searched google) you next told us all that it was £60m over 2 years.... which was actually a proposal, not a fact. Something you clearly didn''t grasp.Otherwise you have bleated about the club not spending transfer money, when it is clear that as the club does not disclose the fees it is impossible to make any reasoned judgements on what money has been spent. Bizarrely you further castigated me for believing our club rather than speculation in the paper. And it is speculation, as they state.Tthe point of this is not merely to highlight your stupidity, you are more than capable of doing that yourself, but to challenge the constant attacks by you and others on the club that are based on no more than worthless media tittle tattle. Elsewhere some numpty is having a sly dig at the club over the RVW deal with St Etienne without even knowing what the terms of that deal are !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...