I don't personally agree with you here. Not every swap deal necessarily equates to £0. So if I have a Mars bar and you have a Snickers, but I reeeaaaally want a Mars bar while you're just content with your Snickers, and I'm happy to swap my Mars bar plus 50p for your Snickers, then you'd be happy to do a deal. You get 50p, but the Mars and Snickers are priceless in their values. They are swapped and, apart from the 50p, money hasn't changed hands. It does not mean that the swap now equates to £0.00 (i.e. that the Snickers = Mars+50p, because a Mars bar and Snickers are valued equally), it just means that we've done a deal because I really wanted the Snickers more than you wanted my Mars bar! I can understand why Utrecht are pissed off though. If I gave someone my sofa to sell and said I'd give him 50% of the price he sells it for and he then sells it for free, unfortunately, I entrusted him to sell my sofa and ended up with nothing - but I'd be pissed off. Unless it's written in the deal's documentation that Vorm was used as a substitute for a specific value in the swap, then he's technically priceless. I do reckon Levy tipped his hat to Huw when he realised what Huw was doing - they're shrewd businessmen... I should add that I do not ethically agree with the action if this is what has happened.
The full list of FIFA reulations cane be found here: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/doclists/laws.html The rules regarding transfers detail the types of transfer, ownership of players contracts, who may be involved. Swansea have broken none of those, so I see no risk of any fine at all. I haven't read it 'with a ruler', but I saw nothing to suggest that Swansea might face disciplinary action. There is a catchall section "Rules governing the Procedures of the Playersâ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber", and Utrecht appear to have raised a dispute under this section. The Dispute Resolution system does just that, and the worst that will come out of it will be that Swansea are told to pay Utrecht £x. It is not a disciplinary function. Submissions are made in writing and a decision handed down. Utrecht will say that Vorm was the 2nd string Holland goalkeeper winning a 3rd place medal, with 3 season experience as a 1st choice goalkeeper in the Premier League, he must be worth squillions. Swansea will point out that he was in fact 3rd choice Holland keeper, and that anyway his performances for Holland do not affect his value to them, or to Spurs. As this dispute concerns his transfer value to Spurs and nothing else that is important. They will point out he was good in his first season, he deteriorated in his 2nd season under Laudrup, as many players did, and was distinctly poor in his 3rd season. He got injured and has not really recovered from his injury. They will point out that he was on high wages, had made it clear towards the end of the season that he wanted to go, hopefully to Liverpool, and that he was no better than Tremmel, so the club having brought in a better goalkeeper and were keen to transfer Vorm because they didn't want to pay 1st team wages to a 2nd/3rd choice keeper. An off form and dispirited Vorm would have likely been behind Tremmel for selection. FIFA will also require evidence from Spurs (they can do that) and what Spurs say will be very important, as they are an independent party. Spurs will say that he came to them as an off form 2d/3rd choice keeper who they hope will recover his form of two years ago. If not, they will find someone else. They will too. The tribunal will then decide on the actual value of Vorm to Spurs. As FIFA player valuations are generally on the low side I doubt that they will see him as being worth more than £1.5M, what Swansea paid. Frankly in his current state I doubt that he is worth more than that. Whether he will recover his form when he is back in a properly organized defence reamains to be seen, but it will be Spurs who add that value, subsequent to his transfer. The Dutch are notoriously difficult to deal with in business, very sure of themselves and full of righteous indignation in an argument. On the other hand when it is over, they don't bear grudges "It was an argument, it was business, now it is over and we are friends again" is very much the style. If I have it anywhere near right, then it is easy to see that the two clubs see the situation from completely different and irreconcilable perspectives. This is what the disputes system is for. Using it does not reflect badly on either party.
Another foolish,and blatantly untrue post.Are you not able to understand English? There IS no anti Swansea brigade,just some people who see things in a different light, and use their brains to work through scenarios,that are clearly beyond your remit. I have actually read the above,and found it quite interesting,so get off your high horse before you fall off and do yourself a mischief. As for anyone wanting to see the club is "severely punished",well,that is a blatant misrepresentation of what I,for one,have mooted,i.e. a lie,since nobody has suggested that. It will be interesting to see what the tribunal come up with. How will you be able to deal with a guilty verdict? If the Club is found to have acted incorrectly,then a punishment should ensue. What part of that don't you understand? You seem to think that your football club,and it's leaders, are somehow immune to ANY form of criticism,or that they should be held to account in any way.
Spot on Lib. Too many posters see any sort of criticism of the Club as disloyalty - most of them weren't with me on a wet and windy night down the Vetch watching the Swans along with about 1,000 others and a couple of stray dogs. "Anti-Swans Brigade" - what tripe.
It stinks no matter how you cut it ...this will cost us ... although I suspect we will never get to know how much
Will it cost us money ... Huw " Undisclosed " Jenkins wants us to be like a mushroom , kept in the dark and fed sh#t..and that generally cost money when your in the wrong
Which is not my point, my point is Siggy was valued more than Vorm, so for us to include Vorm in a swap deal, means he had value. There is no way on this earth we let Vorm go to Spurs for free, and we paid Siggy's full valuation in return. That is not how swap deals work I am afraid. So whatever we saved from the Siggy deal by including Vorm, is what Utrecht are entitled to 30% of. Just because we don't see the money, doesn't mean the value was not there. Doesn't change the fact that the Mars and Snickers are still worth 50p though does it. They don't miraculously become worth 0. What you are willing to pay for the snickers is irrelevant, you are still using the value of your chocolate bar to offset the value of mine. You just want mine so badly you are offering an extra 50p to try and get me to agree. Go to a car dealership, part ex your car, your cars value is taken off the value of the new car, its a payment that is not a payment in monetary sense, but a payment all the same. If we do not pay Utrecht Vorm's valuation in the deal, then unless in the contract it agrees a monetary sum, they can refuse us permission to play the % of siggy that they own, right? We sold Vorm in a part exchange with Siggy, so they own 30% of Vorms value that we saved from the Siggy deal, no? I know it sounds stupid, as does saying Vorm was a free transfer and therefore worth £0 As for you project, thought more of you than to join the brigade of labelling fans for not agreeing with you as Anti-Swans.
Well I guess sell on clauses must be obsolete , anybody should be able to ditch a persons value at will .
Swanselona... I don't want to get into a lengthy debate with you so my below is my last say on the matter from my perspective. A car is sitting there with a value on it. Unfortunately, we can throw analogies all over the place, but football players are not like normal products. They don't have set prices. They are negotiated from nothing and fluctuate violently depending on the market and the buyers interested. So we can sit here and say that Siggy is worth £12m and Vorm is worth £4m. Similarly, you can say that Siggy is worth £4m and therefore Vorm is worth £1m. Their prices are relative concerning the fact that Siggy is worth 4x more than Vorm, but the values are significantly different. Now we have absolutely no conclusive evidence of the values involved in the deal. How do we even know that the deal isn't written down and agreed with Tottenham as Vorm sold for 1p, Gylfi bought for 4p, and we paid money for the rest? Unfortunately, in that case, what can Utrecht do about it? Tottenham decided to value and sell Gylfi for 4p, we decided to value and sell Vorm for 1p. Both clubs are entitled to do that as they were our players. It was our deal, Utrecht unfortunately don't have a say in our dealings. Obviously my above example is extreme, purely fictional, unlikely, may have holes in the logic, and I don't ethically agree with it. The point is that we can do what we want with our deal to aid our position in our deal with Utrecht. We could've bought Gylfi for £4,999,999.99 and Vorm is the extra 1p of £5million if we'd wanted. I would be disappointed to hear of any tactics like this as, usually, they'll come back and bite you on the backside in later years.
Well seeing as Spurs had an 8m bid for Sigurdsson, you can start his valuation from there upwards. Your idea of pricing by multiples is also illogical and flawed. Like you said, if Vorm is 1/4 of Siggy, by selling for 1p (closest we can get to the free transfer claimed). Then siggy is worth 4p, do you really think Spurs would be happy to get 3p for the sale of Siggy? Even if you said Vorm was £1m, Siggy would be £4m, do you think Spurs would be happy to take £3m + a £2m valued Vorm, when Palace had already bid £8m. Put it this way, if Vorm was worth as you said 1/4 of siggy, and the original values were £2m and £8m (lets just play) Now spurs do a swap deal and get Vorm + £6m = £8m value Now we do your idea of lowering the prices to still be 1/4 but lower, £1m would suit. So that makes Siggy £4m. Now spurs do a swap deal and get Vorm + £3m = £5m (both clubs are aware that Vorm's is still being legitimately worth £2m) Do you honestly believe Spurs are stupid enough to throw away £3m? The deal in place would have seen Vorms value taken off Siggy's, they could on paper write it down as Vorm was worth 1p, and Siggy was worth £5,999,999 = which would be the original £8m valuation. But its not right. And if we are guilty of such practice, then as much as I love my club, I would have no gripes if we had the book chucked at us. For me, your reasons are nothing but excuses, trying to sugar coat the situation and trying your hardest to defend the club. How you can even try to justify Vorm being worth NOTHING is beyond me. And if they have taken £2m off Siggy's value (or whatever amount) and claimed that Vorm went for nothing, that would be fraud. The bloke was 3rd choice for Holland, he still had 2 years on his contract, there is no way he went for nothing, and if you honestly believe his part in the swap was worth £0, then I am sorry, your blinkered.
Yes we are pulling a sly one, but would people prefer us to just give money away? The money we saved payed for our big screens.
Were not "giving "money awsy , we keeping the dutch clubs money , spin it any way you want but we are losing a great reputation by the day .
