Ricky

[jaemae2 0]

Are you unfamiliar with that word... Pretty sure it originated in England... I forgot to stick with fussball... fussball is much more appropriate...

[morty 0]

[quote user="jaemae2"]Are you unfamiliar with that word... Pretty sure it originated in England... I forgot to stick with fussball... fussball is much more appropriate...[/quote]I have no doubt it did.Most normal people I know call it football, or occasionally "footy"

[jaemae2 0]

words are difficult, I understand, so for a little help, here you go...:

In fact, in the early days of the sport among the upper echelons of British society, the proper term for the sport was “Soccer”. Not only that, but the sport being referred to as “Soccer” preceded the first recorded instance of it being called by the singular word “Football” by about 18 years,

[TIL 1010 4,738]

[quote user="morty"]Soccer?

Seriously?
[/quote]

A strong whiff of your old mate Houston I think Morty. [;)]

[morty 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="morty"]Soccer?Seriously?[/quote]

A strong whiff of your old mate Houston I think Morty. [;)]

[/quote]It has a sniff of septic tank about it.

[mrs miggins 0]

yep this is the sort of person we have on our hands. Since Hooper has come back from his injury he''s been fantastic imo

[jaemae2 0]

I mean what is this "dos" or "si" stuff the word is "two" and "yes". Why can''t everyone just say the same word... They are so stupid.

[morty 0]

[:|]

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="jaemae2"]Yes, the "possibly more" was pretty optimistic. If they sell for less than that 6 mill. pounds and Wolfswinkel scores at least 13 goals for them (which looks more than likely) then that''s just poor negotiating. If he scores like 8 or 9 then will prob. be a loss.

I partially agree he''d have less success in a league like the PL if he were to stay here. Don''t know what he''d do in the Championship but by evidence he''s well a better player than Hooper. To say otherwise is pretty daft.[/quote]That wasn''t entirely the point I was making. Not only was your "possibly more" optimistic, but your belief that we would at least recoup our money equally optimistic, given that the reported fee we have negotiated is not sufficient to achieve that. And you continue to have an exaggerated idea of how wealthy St-Etienne are and what price we could possibly have negotiated with them in the real world.

[JF 694]

Unless we take a hell of a financial hit on him they won''t be buying him.

[splutcho 173]

Just to say, (not agreeing with Jaemae...tool) to suggest that Ligue 1 and the Championship are equal is pretty laughable.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="JF"]Unless we take a hell of a financial hit on him they won''t be buying him.[/quote]A guess, educated or otherwise, would be, assuming he has settled in St-Etienne and scores enough goals for them to want to keep him, that we might be offered at best around half what we paid, and that we would settle for that.

[STFU 0]

Where did you get your facts jaemae? ''Football'' has been in use for centuries while ''soccer'' was introduced as an abbreviation of ''association football'' in the 1880s. The Football Association was founded in 1863 so this is 20 years before the word soccer was introduced. In other words, you''re talking complete sh1te.

[grefstad 0]

Well...all of you numpties probably never see much football outside England at all, but I do, and from what I have seen of St.Etienne this season (seen 5-6 games), RvW has not been that impressive.

Yes, he has scored a few, almost all of them rather simple goals, and due to good wing service.

All of his goals are withing 5-10 yards from goal, typical poacher goals.

They play various systems depending on the opposition, but recently with two eager wingers to supply him, Gradel and Hamouma.

Not very impressed by RvW now either, but he is getting better service, as the inverted winger stuff Hughton played was poison for RvW.

And I agree that he is likely not tough enough to cut it in England. A bit too wee and lightweight, and these players is too much of a luxury for those teams needing a goalscorer. Therefore, the continent is the right place for him.

Getting most of the money back for him is OK business imho.

[morty 0]

I always think its a good start, if you are trying to make a serious point in a thread, to label everyone who has posted before, "numpties"

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

[quote user="grefstad"]Well...all of you numpties probably never see much football outside England at all, but I do, and from what I have seen of St.Etienne this season (seen 5-6 games), RvW has not been that impressive.

Yes, he has scored a few, almost all of them rather simple goals, and due to good wing service.

All of his goals are withing 5-10 yards from goal, typical poacher goals.

They play various systems depending on the opposition, but recently with two eager wingers to supply him, Gradel and Hamouma.

Not very impressed by RvW now either, but he is getting better service, as the inverted winger stuff Hughton played was poison for RvW.

And I agree that he is likely not tough enough to cut it in England. A bit too wee and lightweight, and these players is too much of a luxury for those teams needing a goalscorer. Therefore, the continent is the right place for him.

Getting most of the money back for him is OK business imho.[/quote]We''ve got television that shows football from all around the world, it''s just thay we''re so stupid we can''t make the remote work.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="JF"]Unless we take a hell of a financial hit on him they won''t be buying him.[/quote]A guess, educated or otherwise, would be, assuming he has settled in St-Etienne and scores enough goals for them to want to keep him, that we might be offered at best around half what we paid, and that we would settle for that.[/quote]

 

Did we recieve a loan fee for RVW? And could we loan him again if all parties were agreeable? A couple of loan fees followed by a transfer fee could be a way out?

 

 

[? 0]

Here you go Nige, says we were paid a 1.5m signing on fee.

http://www.ex-canaries.co.uk/players/wolfswinkel.htm

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Cheers buddy. So there you go, just keep loaning him for 5 years and job''s a good ''un. [:)]

 

But I should think there''s already some sort of agreement in place.

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Ron Manager"]Here you go Nige, says we were paid a 1.5m signing on fee.

http://www.ex-canaries.co.uk/players/wolfswinkel.htm[/quote]Actually it says a loan fee of £1.25m.

[hogesar 9,658]

He wasn''t good enough, he isn''t good enough. I don''t really care what he does in France unless he hits 25 goals this season at which point i''ll take notice.

Barring that, with the benefit of hindsight one of our worst ever signings. The way Hughton set us up makes it even more astounding as to why we signed him.

Even at his best, we weren''t a good enough PL team to be able to afford having nothing more than a poacher in the team. Whilst you can label Hooper the same - he has far more strength and hold up ability which makes him more than that.

[Indy 3,297]

In all reality we were never going to keep Ricky.

We could never afford to keep alll our premiership sqaud.

I''m sure ricky, fer & snodders were all the higher earners who we got more than a fair price for.

Yes I''m sure ricky would have scored a fair few goals in this league but he failed in the premiership and city chose to cash in and invest in three proven strikers at this level and faith in Hooper who scored a shed load at this level.

For me let it go..... good deal for everyone and good luck to RVW.

[Syteanric 1]

what an extraordinary fellow that Jaemae is...

[Len 74]

Regardless of wages or whether a player wished to remain, several players decided they didn''t want to stay and play for a very inexperienced U18''s manager. The poor quality of football at Norwich was another related factor and this must for example have influenced Surman''s decision to return to Bournemouth.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="grefstad"]All of his goals are within 5-10 yards from goal, typical poacher goals.

They play various systems depending on the opposition, but recently with two eager wingers to supply him, Gradel and Hamouma.[/quote]Exactly.He''s not being asked to play as a lone target man and hold the ball up as he was under Hughton.He consistently failed to receive any level of decent and repeated service, be this through balls, crosses or balls across the area (exactly the balls a goal poacher needs to score), so it was never a shock to me that he consistently failed to score either.All this loan move has done is prove that he was completely and utterly misused by Hughton, and I''d welcome him back here, hopefully under a manager that plays to his strengths instead of ALL his weaknesses.

[? 0]

Don''t know if this was mentioned in November, but reading what he said in this interview I very much doubt if we will ever see him in a City shirt again.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11709/9569009/van-wolfswinkel-reveals-hurt

Sorry can''t do hyperlinks on this tablet.

[Yellow Wal 314]

That was an understandable reaction.

I don''t think Hughton will be on his Christmas card list!