Rvw

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Big_Ray_Ltfc"]Okie cokey matey but what is the deal for the option to buy? Also would he not see playing in the premier (if we get the promotions) more better than the French league[/quote]Wasn''t the buy option something like 5 or 6 million? Added to the loan fee it almost got us our money back, which considering the season he had was a pretty good deal!Thats a lot of money for a player in that league though, will be interesting to see what happens if he has a good, but not outstanding season.I wonder if theres an option where Ricky can override it in any way?[/quote]The option to buy was set at £6m on top of the £1.5m for this season. Whether that amount would survive in the real world of negotiations is a question. If it were to then nutty''s PUPs'' kitty for next season would be £60 better off. As to the idea that Hughton was to blame for van Wolfswinkel''s poor performance, no, that was not universally accepted. Some posters were of the opinion that he wasn''t a particularly good footballer who had been markedly overvalued at £8.5m.[/quote]The general consensus, however, was that we were getting a bit of a bargain, based on his clubs financial predicament, and their need to sell. And I''m talking about the wider view, not just on here.[/quote]That is a different issue. There may have been a consensus on that when the deal was done, which is not to say everybody agreed. But what I was talking about was your comment on his performance DURING last season. This post of yours:"I thought we were universally blaming Hughton for that?"On that there was certainly not universal agreement or even a consensus with a few dissenters. A fair number of posters here (I can''t speak for anywhere else) came to the view that van Wolfswinkel just wasn''t very good, and so - by logical extension - it was not a case of Hughton''s tactical approach turning him into a dud. I tended to the latter view but only saw van Wolfswinkel play football for about 100 minutes, so that was very much a provisional judgment.

[morty 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="morty"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Big_Ray_Ltfc"]Okie cokey matey but what is the deal for the option to buy? Also would he not see playing in the premier (if we get the promotions) more better than the French league[/quote]Wasn''t the buy option something like 5 or 6 million? Added to the loan fee it almost got us our money back, which considering the season he had was a pretty good deal!Thats a lot of money for a player in that league though, will be interesting to see what happens if he has a good, but not outstanding season.I wonder if theres an option where Ricky can override it in any way?[/quote]The option to buy was set at £6m on top of the £1.5m for this season. Whether that amount would survive in the real world of negotiations is a question. If it were to then nutty''s PUPs'' kitty for next season would be £60 better off. As to the idea that Hughton was to blame for van Wolfswinkel''s poor performance, no, that was not universally accepted. Some posters were of the opinion that he wasn''t a particularly good footballer who had been markedly overvalued at £8.5m.[/quote]The general consensus, however, was that we were getting a bit of a bargain, based on his clubs financial predicament, and their need to sell. And I''m talking about the wider view, not just on here.[/quote]That is a different issue. There may have been a consensus on that when the deal was done, which is not to say everybody agreed. But what I was talking about was your comment on his performance DURING last season. This post of yours:"I thought we were universally blaming Hughton for that?"On that there was certainly not universal agreement or even a consensus with a few dissenters. A fair number of posters here (I can''t speak for anywhere else) came to the view that van Wolfswinkel just wasn''t very good, and so - by logical extension - it was not a case of Hughton''s tactical approach turning him into a dud. I tended to the latter view but only saw van Wolfswinkel play football for about 100 minutes, so that was very much a provisional judgment.[/quote]I was being deliberately flippant with the statement about Hughton, and assumed that was obvious.Hmm, I don''t remember too many dissenters, more people trying to be "clever" after the fact, if I''m honest.If he really isn''t that good, as I said, he must have the best agent in the world.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="morty"]

I was being deliberately flippant with the statement about Hughton, and assumed that was obvious.

[/quote]No. That wasn''t obvious. Not least because many posters here (I would guess at a majority but it would only be a guess) did indeed take the view that RvW was a good player ruined by Hughton, rather than just a bad player.

[Mr Angry 1,545]

Or at least if not ruined by Hughton, then being played in a role that he was unable to perform in-which probably amounts to the same thing.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="morty"]

If you go back to when we signed him pundits were creaming themselves over how much of an absolute bargain we were getting, yeah it didn''t work out, but always been shit? Nah.


[/quote]

 

Pundits got excited when Everton signed Jermaine Beckford off the back of all his goals at Leeds once too...

thats why they are pundits.. and not managers or coaches.

[grefstad 0]

[quote user="morty"]Do you have evidence to support that no other club made enquiries about him, or you just speculating?

[/quote]

How could I ever show such evidence? I dont have inside insight in dealings going on at Sporting. No media ever reported other clubs having mustered offers for RvW.

But it is fair to assume that other clubs thought the price was too steep for his ability.

At lease English clubs.

RvW being a bit too slender for the English league is, based on last season, a fact.

He is more suited to the continental style, and France/Germany/Holland/Italy/Spain should suit him better.

Still, he dis not impress me, or anyone else (I suspect) on last nights showing, although he finally scored his second goal in 1 year...

Maybe it is a confidence thing. Maybe he was just hyped up before arriving at NCFC.

I think there is a combination of him being hyped up, being asked to play a role he is not suited for, and very poor service by the NCFC midfielders (Snodgrass in particular).

Strikers thrive on confidence and service. At Norwich he got none of both.

[GJP 79]

Clearly he''s not hopeless otherwise he wouldn''t have got this far in the game. But just as clear is that he was never the right player for us and that we overpaid for him.

 

I heard a long time back that Hughton was never 100% sure about him - but I guess he didn''t see it going quite as badly as it did.

 

(And of course you can say there''s an element of doubt about any transfer)

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Go Ricky! Hopefully he can kick on from here and it''ll prove psychological rather then a reflection of his natural talents. The reason i was so gutted about him doing rubbish for us was because his attitude and personality were spot on. If we''d has some sulky sod like Anelka doing rubbish i wouldn''t be so bothered in that way. I''d simply forget he ever played for us.

[Patches OHoolahan 0]

May have been a touch lucky with the goalkeeping, but was still a good finish last night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTOnOdM2eDo

[AJ 1,218]

Happened to see his goal earlier today, nice finish and although his career is all but finished here I do hope the poor guy gets a run of a few goals now!