By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 21:51 - Aug 11 by reddythered
Given Vorm will get splinters sitting on the fence as there's no chance in hell he'll start instead of Lloris, surely his value in the deal would thus be negligable? Experienced backup and all that.
Given where you've come from I'd find it odd if a deal was organised to stiff Utrecht out of a small figure.
I'm particularly liking the theory we turned down £5m from Liverpool to avoid paying a potential £1m to Utrecht.
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 21:55 - Aug 11 by monmouth
Spurs would have expected to pay a fee for a reserve goalkeeper that they obviously rate with two years left on his contract wouldn't they?
(I wouldn't disagree with your assessment by the way, but if Spurs agreed they wouldn't want him with ribbons on)
We don't know they didn't pay a fee. All we know is that we didn't pay Utrecht a sellon fee, so we can assume any fee was less than 2m.
I'm not sure what value I'd have put on Vorm. If I was looking at market value I don't think it'd be more than that anyway. Maybe there's an element factored into the Davies/Gylfi deal and if it was done to avoid a sellon clause then aye I'd agree it's a little naughty, but it's all a bit marginal for me to think it's a big conspiracy to stiff the Dutch.
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 21:55 - Aug 11 by monmouth
Spurs would have expected to pay a fee for a reserve goalkeeper that they obviously rate with two years left on his contract wouldn't they?
(I wouldn't disagree with your assessment by the way, but if Spurs agreed they wouldn't want him with ribbons on)
People get too concerned with valuations. I blame Football Manager for that.
Was Rambo worth only 4.8m? Of course not. Did we need the money desparately? Definitely. Any "value" is whatever a selling club would/need to accept and whatever a buying club want to pay. A nominal value can be applied when players are listed as assets, that depreciates over time...
Fact is, you got a goalkeeper in to replace Vorm. Hence Vorm's value to you even with 2 years left isn't going to be great. Spurs wouldn't look to pay "market value" ( whatever the hell that is... ) for a keeper you're replacing to act as a backup for them... only Liverpool would be dumb enough to splash major wonga.
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 22:00 - Aug 11 by Uxbridge
We don't know they didn't pay a fee. All we know is that we didn't pay Utrecht a sellon fee, so we can assume any fee was less than 2m.
I'm not sure what value I'd have put on Vorm. If I was looking at market value I don't think it'd be more than that anyway. Maybe there's an element factored into the Davies/Gylfi deal and if it was done to avoid a sellon clause then aye I'd agree it's a little naughty, but it's all a bit marginal for me to think it's a big conspiracy to stiff the Dutch.
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 22:01 - Aug 11 by reddythered
People get too concerned with valuations. I blame Football Manager for that.
Was Rambo worth only 4.8m? Of course not. Did we need the money desparately? Definitely. Any "value" is whatever a selling club would/need to accept and whatever a buying club want to pay. A nominal value can be applied when players are listed as assets, that depreciates over time...
Fact is, you got a goalkeeper in to replace Vorm. Hence Vorm's value to you even with 2 years left isn't going to be great. Spurs wouldn't look to pay "market value" ( whatever the hell that is... ) for a keeper you're replacing to act as a backup for them... only Liverpool would be dumb enough to splash major wonga.
In my opinion, we were probably glad to have him off the wage bill because of FFP.
One goalkeeper and one full back had to go. Only FIFA, Huw and Levy probably know the details of the transfers.
0
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 22:16 - Aug 11 with 2112 views
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 21:54 - Aug 11 by Uxbridge
I'm particularly liking the theory we turned down £5m from Liverpool to avoid paying a potential £1m to Utrecht.
And who was it you believe devised that theory, 'casue it sure as shit wasn't me.
Cast you mind back the distant mists of last month. Liverpool and Spurs both wanted to buy Ben and Vorm. However, only one of them was willing to offer something more valuable even than cash to a Swansea team without an AM; Gylfi.
Of course the terms of the transaction were hush-hush, but my own personal feeling is that in our desperation to land Gylfi, Huw bent over to such a degree that he saw screwing Utrect out of their sell-on fee as key to keeping up appearances.
Regardless, you seem fully convinced of your own avowed theory that Vorm's value was nil.
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 22:00 - Aug 11 by Uxbridge
We don't know they didn't pay a fee. All we know is that we didn't pay Utrecht a sellon fee, so we can assume any fee was less than 2m.
I'm not sure what value I'd have put on Vorm. If I was looking at market value I don't think it'd be more than that anyway. Maybe there's an element factored into the Davies/Gylfi deal and if it was done to avoid a sellon clause then aye I'd agree it's a little naughty, but it's all a bit marginal for me to think it's a big conspiracy to stiff the Dutch.
£2m and no profit is feasible (just), a free transfer isn't...
Wouldn't have thought it would be lost in translation with JVZ around. We'll see...
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 22:01 - Aug 11 by reddythered
People get too concerned with valuations. I blame Football Manager for that.
Was Rambo worth only 4.8m? Of course not. Did we need the money desparately? Definitely. Any "value" is whatever a selling club would/need to accept and whatever a buying club want to pay. A nominal value can be applied when players are listed as assets, that depreciates over time...
Fact is, you got a goalkeeper in to replace Vorm. Hence Vorm's value to you even with 2 years left isn't going to be great. Spurs wouldn't look to pay "market value" ( whatever the hell that is... ) for a keeper you're replacing to act as a backup for them... only Liverpool would be dumb enough to splash major wonga.
I see, your argument is to exclude Liverpool from the group of participants that represent the market, because they always overpay.
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 22:16 - Aug 11 by Shaky
And who was it you believe devised that theory, 'casue it sure as shit wasn't me.
Cast you mind back the distant mists of last month. Liverpool and Spurs both wanted to buy Ben and Vorm. However, only one of them was willing to offer something more valuable even than cash to a Swansea team without an AM; Gylfi.
Of course the terms of the transaction were hush-hush, but my own personal feeling is that in our desperation to land Gylfi, Huw bent over to such a degree that he saw screwing Utrect out of their sell-on fee as key to keeping up appearances.
Regardless, you seem fully convinced of your own avowed theory that Vorm's value was nil.
You're confusing newspaper reports with actual events. Easily done.
Given that Palace had an offer accepted for Gylfi of approx £8m, do you really believe that that somehow got spun into a straight swap for a goalkeeper and defender we could have got north of £15m from Liverpool if you believe the reports? Doesn't quite add up does it?
Anyway, neither of us know the details, so we can spin it whatever way our prejudices allow eh
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 22:19 - Aug 11 by Shaky
I see, your argument is to exclude Liverpool from the group of participants that represent the market, because they always overpay.
Is that a uniquely Welsh take on logic?
Au contraire.
For any complaint to be effective, market value as pointless as that is would be something that could be involved.
Citing paper talk would just be silly. After all, papers today claimed we were signing Ravel Morrison which the club have debunked.
But anyway, there's no concrete evidence of any Liverpool bid for Vorm.
Liverpool have for a notable period overpaid for players. Don't think anybody can argue against that fact. If you want any semblance of a nominal market value, I'd tend to ignore outliers. That's just a theoretical exercise after all; reality being different.
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 22:23 - Aug 11 by Uxbridge
You're confusing newspaper reports with actual events. Easily done.
Given that Palace had an offer accepted for Gylfi of approx £8m, do you really believe that that somehow got spun into a straight swap for a goalkeeper and defender we could have got north of £15m from Liverpool if you believe the reports? Doesn't quite add up does it?
Anyway, neither of us know the details, so we can spin it whatever way our prejudices allow eh
"Given that Palace had an offer accepted for Gylfi of approx £8m, do you really believe that that somehow got spun into a straight swap for a goalkeeper and defender"
1. That is in effect what you are arguing.
2. Liverpool seemingly bid £8m for Ben, and numbers quoted for Vorm were in the range of £3.5-5m making the high well below £15m.
3. You are right that we don't have precise details of all this, but the only thing that is certain is that your assertion that Vorm was worth nothing is not credible at all.
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 22:28 - Aug 11 by WarwickHunt
Except Utrecht are saying we told them it was a free transfer.
Not sure if anyone would really be that stupid but they do seem a tad upset...
£2m or free makes no odds to the argument, moral or otherwise. The only way Utrecht could have a genuine grievance is if we sold Vorm for a value over that.
They're sounding off for whatever reason. Maybe they think they've been stiffed, maybe they're just playing to the gallery. Who knows. However if the club and FIFA are saying there's nothing untoward here then I'm really not seeing the conspiracy.
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 22:30 - Aug 11 by Shaky
"Given that Palace had an offer accepted for Gylfi of approx £8m, do you really believe that that somehow got spun into a straight swap for a goalkeeper and defender"
1. That is in effect what you are arguing.
2. Liverpool seemingly bid £8m for Ben, and numbers quoted for Vorm were in the range of £3.5-5m making the high well below £15m.
3. You are right that we don't have precise details of all this, but the only thing that is certain is that your assertion that Vorm was worth nothing is not credible at all.
Why is it not credible? All we have is one report saying Liverpool bid £5m. Why would we not sell him to them at that price if that was the case? It's a mere £3m less that Gylfi's asking price on its own. It just doesn't add up.
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 22:28 - Aug 11 by reddythered
Au contraire.
For any complaint to be effective, market value as pointless as that is would be something that could be involved.
Citing paper talk would just be silly. After all, papers today claimed we were signing Ravel Morrison which the club have debunked.
But anyway, there's no concrete evidence of any Liverpool bid for Vorm.
Liverpool have for a notable period overpaid for players. Don't think anybody can argue against that fact. If you want any semblance of a nominal market value, I'd tend to ignore outliers. That's just a theoretical exercise after all; reality being different.
What do you mean complaint? If you are referring to my comments about EU anti-trust law they were tongue in cheek.
If you mean an action for breach of contract, that would depend on the wording. For example if concepts like good faith are mentioned we would seem to be on a somewhat sticky wicket.
Finally although we have no concrete evidence of anything, that doesn't necessarily imply that none exists. For example Vorm's agent might well be able to shed some light on this.
As for prices paid, sure Liverpool have overpaid but what's that got to do with the price of tea? It is just not material, and determining market value value is not like some kind of statistical analysis where you throw out the highs and lows; the point is precisely that it is not a theoretical exercise.
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 22:36 - Aug 11 by Uxbridge
£2m or free makes no odds to the argument, moral or otherwise. The only way Utrecht could have a genuine grievance is if we sold Vorm for a value over that.
They're sounding off for whatever reason. Maybe they think they've been stiffed, maybe they're just playing to the gallery. Who knows. However if the club and FIFA are saying there's nothing untoward here then I'm really not seeing the conspiracy.
Well, one figure is believable and the other isn't... FIFA may well want to have a closer look at it.
£3.5m has been widely reported in London by the way.
0
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 22:56 - Aug 11 with 1953 views
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 22:43 - Aug 11 by WarwickHunt
Well, one figure is believable and the other isn't... FIFA may well want to have a closer look at it.
£3.5m has been widely reported in London by the way.
If the price was £3.5m we'd have paid the clause. The only time I can recall us even haggling on a clause was the Priskin one.
If you think £2m is believable then I really fail to see the argument here. You're picking some shitty sticks to beat them with at the minute. Choose better old chap, there's plenty available.
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 22:43 - Aug 11 by Shaky
What do you mean complaint? If you are referring to my comments about EU anti-trust law they were tongue in cheek.
If you mean an action for breach of contract, that would depend on the wording. For example if concepts like good faith are mentioned we would seem to be on a somewhat sticky wicket.
Finally although we have no concrete evidence of anything, that doesn't necessarily imply that none exists. For example Vorm's agent might well be able to shed some light on this.
As for prices paid, sure Liverpool have overpaid but what's that got to do with the price of tea? It is just not material, and determining market value value is not like some kind of statistical analysis where you throw out the highs and lows; the point is precisely that it is not a theoretical exercise.
They'd obviously be tongue in cheek...
Utrecht have complained, have they not?
Vorm's agent is hardly an uninterested party. After all, the lower the fee, the higher the signing on fee is what normally happens, certainly after the Bosman rule change. Buying club pays less, well, gives wiggle room for a larger signing on fee.
My whole point is you can't come out with some magic formula that dictates "market value". It's way too flexible and dynamic a market - hence I pointed out people see values in FM, believe they can magically be applied... or transfer market websites somehow decide to put their valuations on.
So based upon that, for Utrecht to win any complaint they'd need evidence that a fee was agreed for Vorm, which would qualify them for a sell on fee which was then magically quashed via the structuring of the deal or that Vorm had a specific valuation as part of the deal which would give them money.
Breach of contract? Could only be breached if there was evidence of deliberately causing the deal to avoid any sell on fees. It'll be the case everybody knows it, nobody can prove it.
The point about ignoring Liverpool is precisely to provide a theroretical model - which would be useless anyway as every player is different. Without something like the NFL model of salary caps and the CBA, where you find precendents on contracts are pretty important, then defining a reasonable market value is by looking at the market of similar deals.
If Liverpool, PSG et al driver the market value by establishing "maximums" then that skews fees upwards, inflating the market value.
Either way, it's all utterly irrelevant because such a metric simply isn't workable.
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 19:00 - Aug 11 by magicdaps10
Do people actually believe that we got rid off Vorm for nothing!?!
If the club done a deal that made it look like Vorm went for free then it is done entirely to save them giving anything to Utrecht. I think it shows how tight and stingy our board are, this is as bad as other clubs taking our players on the cheap when we had nothing.
Unprofessional and disrespectful, the board are so amateur on times its unbelievable. I am thankful for all they did back in the day but time moves on and we cant live on that memory forever.....................at the end of the day, they are doing pretty well now and have been repaid many times over already.
Are you a Swans fan? Thought not, now fwck off you pwick.
STID
0
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 23:14 - Aug 11 with 1904 views
Sorry Reddy, but you are failing at a very basic level to understand the concept of a market value. It is precisely what somebody is freely willing to pay, regardless of whether the balance of the other actors who have been outbid believe the going rate is nuts.
Anyway, if you want further clarification it'll have to be . . .
Is it me or are there a lot of "ifs" and "mights" being used on this thread? Instead of beating the club, shall we wait until Utrecht's complaint to FIFA is resolved? What happened to the basic principles of UK law of being 'innocent until proven guilty'?
0
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 00:08 - Aug 12 with 1833 views
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 22:56 - Aug 11 by Uxbridge
If the price was £3.5m we'd have paid the clause. The only time I can recall us even haggling on a clause was the Priskin one.
If you think £2m is believable then I really fail to see the argument here. You're picking some shitty sticks to beat them with at the minute. Choose better old chap, there's plenty available.
Not beating anyone as I don't know the facts and neither do you. Hypothetical, see...
Merely saying that if Utrecht are correct and we're trying to stiff a smaller club by using underhand tactics to save what appears to be around 500k it's pathetic and shortsighted.
Moreover, if as alleged, we've told them it was a free transfer, it's also unbelievably f*cking dumb.
If we're squeaky clean, and it's all a load of hot air, then all well and good. We'll find out soon enough.
However, not great publicity and sh1t tends to stick...
0
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 00:11 - Aug 12 with 1822 views
Swans reported to FIFA by Utrecht over Vorm on 00:08 - Aug 12 by WarwickHunt
Not beating anyone as I don't know the facts and neither do you. Hypothetical, see...
Merely saying that if Utrecht are correct and we're trying to stiff a smaller club by using underhand tactics to save what appears to be around 500k it's pathetic and shortsighted.
Moreover, if as alleged, we've told them it was a free transfer, it's also unbelievably f*cking dumb.
If we're squeaky clean, and it's all a load of hot air, then all well and good. We'll find out soon enough.
However, not great publicity and sh1t tends to stick...
The football world has a notoriously short memory. The bad publicity won't affect us at all in my opinion.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
