Should we have sold vorm for a profit just so we can please another foreign club or should we look after our self and do the best deal that benefits us ?? for us to get Gyfi and £3m and give them a keeper who wanted to join spurs for free that releases us of his wages is a good deal FOR US......we are not in the business of looking after any other club....
Nope I dont need to wonder, as I am already aware of the procedural rules for confidentiality as laid down in the CoP for CAS
We won the case and you'd think it would be us coming out and saying something out of turn . What I'm asking is has anyone ever heard of a player with years left his contract ever being thrown in the mix of a trade , on the free , to stop a sell on clause ? When it all does come to light I think the court will say that this was a shady event by us , backed up by the Spurs , that proof of wrong doing couldn't be traced and safe guards will be made to stop it from happiening again . Utrecht seem like they are chomping at the bit for information to come out , not so much for us .
'sub judice' sʌb ˈdʒuːdɪsi,sʊb ˈjuːdɪkeɪ/ adjective Law adjective: sub judice; adjective: subjudice under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere. "the cases were still sub judice"
When the case was finished in January we were assured we would here the outcome in 4 weeks .... 4 months later we get a " One Liner " summary . Wonder why and wonder how much longer we wait to hear the total statement ? Wonder why the club got such a burr in their saddle by a small statement from Utrecht?
That is a stupid comment roof, I can just see them in the board room saying "now how can we stop another club from getting any money because of a sell on clause" First of all the the sell on clause would not have been mentioned or discussed in any way because why would it, What we are concerned with is getting Gyfy and because vorm wanted to join spurs anyway the two clubs worked out a deal that suited both clubs not even having a second thought about another club that is totally irrelevant to the deal.......
If you don't think Huw did this to stop the sell on clause ( probably in spite ) then your even ....well .
I don't think he did it primarily to stop a sell-clause - I think the inactivation of the sell-on clause was either an after-thought or a recognised consequence of the deal, and it certainly wouldn't have stopped us from going ahead with the deal because at the end of the day we wanted Gylfi that badly. The deal was all about landing Gylfi. As has been mentioned by others, the deal - from a footballing perspective - was right for us and our board have an obligation to complete deals which are right for us, not others. But another way of looking at it is that, when you weigh up the facts, what exactly did we gain from this deal apart from Gylfi? "Apparently" Ben was swapped with Gylfi and Vorm was transferred for £0. So how exactly have we gained there? We could've sold Vorm to a number of clubs for £5-10m - he was hot property with us, a Dutch international and widely admired. So, whatever the sell-on clause, we shot ourselves in the foot if the swap deal was Ben/Gylfi with Vorm being "sold" for nothing - we lost out on quite a few million too. Not just Utrecht. It's hard luck. We bought Vorm off Utrecht with a sell-on clause. When they sold him, they knew any of the following could happen: Vorm gets injured playing for Swansea and never plays again - NO SELL ON CLAUSE Vorm runs his contract down at Swansea and leaves on a free - NO SELL ON CLAUSE Vorm doesn't play regularly for Swansea and mutually terminates his contract - NO SELL ON CLAUSE When you sell a player, you lose all rights to his future. There were a number of ways that the sell-on clause would be left inactive, and only one way it could be activated. Unfortunately for Utrecht, Vorm was included in a swap deal and no sell-on clause was activated. Too bad. If they needed the money so bad they should've asked for more when we bought him - not rolled the dice that he'd be sold on for big money. They rolled the dice and lost, primarily, because we got Fabianski for free and didn't need money at the time for a goalkeeper. Had we not got Fabianski for free, I am certain Vorm would have been sold elsewhere for a decent value. Unfortunate series of events for Utrecht, but a great series of events for us given that Fabianski and Gylfi have been fantastic first team additions.
If we didn't gain anything , why did we do it the way we did it ? We could have sold Vorm for 5 to 10 million ? . We should have kept Davies and sold Vorm and bought Siggy . One of my favorite posters Kidderz but very disappointed in this post
"Swansea has seen the comments made on behalf of Utrecht and was extremely surprised and disappointed at both their timing and inaccuracy," "We wish to make it clear that both clubs have been instructed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport to refrain from comment pending publication of the full decision by the court and we have fully respected this. "Immediately as that occurs the club will make a clear and full comment." The Dutch Eredivisie outfit have previously had their case dismissed by world football's governing body FIFA.
So we sell Davies for 10 to Spurs and throw in Vorm , for Siggy . And we could have sold Vorm for say 8 , made up the difference , and got Siggy and retained Davies . You can go walk off a pier , it doesn't mean you should
Yes roof it could have happened that way, but there were 2 teams in negotiations and you have to come to an agreement not just what we want. That deal worked the best for both clubs and that is why it was struck and as two governing bodies have said nothing was done wrong.
Whether something was done wrong is different than not being caught doing something wrong . I'll wait for the full statement comes out before we announce total victory in the way of fairness lefty . Having to wait 4 months for a one line announcement when we were told we would have a full answer in 4 weeks doesn't bode well for a total victory IMO . We will not come out of this statement unscathed , bank on it .
The transaction has been upheld, so there is nothing more to say other than tough cheese Utrecht!................... Tough cheese Breezy..........
