So those players must have a value. The part you're missing out is where Swansea massively overvalue Davies and undervalue Vorm, purely to screw Utrecht out of the sell-on that they're entitled to.

You can't possibly believe that a player who had two years left on his contract and who had started virtually every game for Swansea since he signed was worth nothing to them.

I guess but then aren't we getting into muddy waters if experts say player is worth £30m, club have issues with player or money or whatever and sell him for £15m, technically costing the original selling club money as well? How does that work in that situation? How does it work if he's got a year left on his contract and they want to get money back from him. I just don't see how that system can work because there are just that many variables in place*

Do you then start having to factor in things like the previous owners because they have a sell on clause that makes it better for them and worse for yourself? I don't think so, you look after the best interest of yourself first.
I do - especially if they couldn't sell him for what they paid.

They got Fabianski in on a free transfer to become their number one keeper. They would have then had Vorm - their second choice keeper taking a wage of a first choice keeper and probably thought it would be better to get him off the wage and stick with the second choice keeper of the previous two years. Therefore letting him go for free alleviates the issue of paying for two keepers.

I DVR too many games to be able to cut the cord. Wish I could be I'm willing to pay the extra so I can watch games without finding out the score.

Well, if you think Vorm genuinely went on a free transfer, then Swansea aren't playing the system, which is what you were saying before.

No, we don't. In this instance, it is clear what the selling club has received and the other club receives x% of this and you don't have to let your experts anywhere near it. The fact he has a year left on his contract is something the experts take into account.

In summary, valuing players is hard. That does not mean that pretending that value is zero in a swap deal is correct or acceptable.

What they paid for him has absolutely no impact on his value now, whether it is more or less than his value now. I fail to see how it is part of the equation.

They haven't broke any rules letting the player go for free, according to the transfer it played no part in the swap deal.

Swansea genuinely may have valued him at 0 due to having to pay his wages and just wanted him off the books. If they didn't get a keeper in beforehand then yeh, i would say he was of way more value to them. Just because he was a starter for the previous two seasons, doesn't mean he is of value at that precise moment.

but yeh it does look like they have said we'll give you Vorm for free in a separate transfer as well. wink wink,

Then they are just playing the system and there really isn't anything you can do about that unless they stop free transfers?

So what happens if Spurs value the player a lot lower than this panel and they are the only ones that are interested in taking him from Swansea? I just can't see how this panel would work.

Should have said than just selling him. Even selling for a loss could have been better from Swansea POV rather than having a player just sit and take a wage.

Yes, you can start legal proceedings.

The panel would make a decision and Swansea and Utrecht are going to have to abide by it.

It's hardly much worse than pretending that Wanamaya is worth zero because BUSINESS, BITCH, is it?

So you don't think Vorm genuinely went on a free transfer then? I wish you'd make your mind up.

The question is, if Davies and Siggy weren't involved in the deal, would Swansea still have allowed Vorm to join Spurs on a free transfer? If the answer is "no" (which I believe it is), then Utrecht should have a case.

I can't see it working i'm afraid. Just too many factors.

lol, that example that marty used with Wanyama was an extreme example which just wouldn't happen.

Why won't it work, it's not that complicated.

Total value of Vorm & Davies was £10m according to that article. Swansea say Davies £10m, Vorm nil. Panel says true values were Davies £5m, Vorm £5m. Swansea pay sell-on percentage to Utrecht based on a selling price of £5m.

It's really quite straightforward. Swansea and Utrecht don't agree on Swansea's attribution of a zero value to Vorm in this transaction. So, they either:
1) Come to an agreement about Vorm's valuation at the time and avoid all of this.
2) Go to arbitration and expert determination to award on the case.
3) Go to court.

That's how it works. "It's a bit hard" isn't sufficient reason for Utrecht to be legged over.

True values based on what though? Some transfers are wild, if it happened a day after Carroll was sold for £35m then what? Is this true value at that specific time, is it before the deal was done or is it the current market from this point in time?

Davies could be worth way more to spurs. Vorm way less due to Lloris. Spurs keepers all get injured, Vorm prices goes up and he becomes more valuable to them.

If this panel stuff was implemented on swap deals like this, then the player in question would just go on a loan to avoid any of it.

Hoopie - how can they fairly judge how much a player is worth to the owner at that moment in time? It could simply be a case of them wanting him off their books. How is that fair if they get penalised for that?

I just don't understand why you're struggling so much with this. They already have transfer tribunals (see Ings to Liverpool), which take all sorts of different criteria into account. This would work the same way.

I feel like I'm just going round in circles, but it's clear that, in this particular case, Davies has been overvalued while Vorm has been undervalued and the only reason for this is so that Swansea get out of paying the sell-on to Utrecht. The hypothetical panel would decide by how much. Although it appears to be moot as Utrecht aren't getting any help from the Football authorities, so Swansea are likely to get away with it.

The transfer tribunals are only when the two parties involved in selling and buying can't agree on a fee. If he wasn't going to be out of contract there wouldn't be an issue. Plop would have eventually had to agree to a higher price if they wanted their target.

In this case the parties involved have agreed on a fee and got the deal done. My issue is that some panel shouldn't be able to say after its done how much the value of those players in a deal that has been completed and signed off is worth. Then penalise the selling club for selling their own asset for under their estimated value - the value to which they think that club should value that player at.

How much more money could QPR pay Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink than what he's getting at Burton Albion? Emotionally, I can't think of leaving Burton Albion top of league one for such a joke of a club, but money talks.

I am still of the opinion that Warnock is saying all the right things, but this was his plan all along, and he wants the QPR job.

So you're arguing that Vorm would have been allowed to join Spurs on a free transfer if the other two players weren't involved in the deal?

The selling club wouldn't be penalised for selling their asset at a low value, because that isn't what they've done. They've, fraudulently, understated that value to avoid paying a sell-on clause.

the more interesting question is why on earth did they make the fraud so obvious

More money and QPR just have more potential regardless of their joke status. Going to hate Jimmy being at lolpr but seems a good move if it happens. Burton have done great but judging by GD, they are probably in a false position at the top but pretty strong promotion chances.

Swansea could have given him to Brighton for free if they wanted, as long as the player agreed to the move. Some times it's better for clubs to get just players off the books. Whether that's moving them on for a small price or free.

You don't know what value Swansea had on the player, he could have had a negative value. He could have been worth £25m in there eyes.

Unless a club comes out and says how much they want for the player, you just guess how much of a value they put on that player.

And if they had done that, there would be no issue.

You're right, we don't know, but it's reasonable to assume that a first-team player with two years left on their contract isn't going to be allowed to leave for nothing. That is what Utrecht are arguing and I think they should have a case.

Do you think that Vorm would have been allowed to join Spurs on a free transfer if the other two players weren't involved in the deal?

We're never going to come to an agreement.

At the end of the day owners decide how much the asset is worth, they decide whether or not to buy/sell. Thats why we have a wild and unpredictable transfer market. You or I can't say, actually Messi should only be worth £2m.

If it's too low or too high, in your eyes it really doesn't matter as long as the parties involved are happy and agree - the deal wouldn't go ahead otherwise.

I don't disagree with any of that, but that's not the issue.

There's only one relevant question, and you still haven't answered it - well you have, but then changed your mind.

Do you think that Vorm would have been allowed to join Spurs on a free transfer if the other two players weren't involved in the deal?

Or let's try it another way, do you think Spurs would have let Siggy go to Swansea if they only got Davies in return?

I wonder what Troy Townsend will have to say if QPR appoint JFH, given that he thought Ramsey was sacked because of his skin colour.

Last post on the subject.

Players go on free transfers all the time. He may have asked to leave seen as they just brought in a new keeper.

No, that's why they wanted an extra £10m.

-

Swansea the owners valued Vorm at 0

Utrecht can value him at £100bn, does make any difference to the valuation Swansea have on him when selling/offloading to another club unless they are interested in buying him. Maybe the next time they sell a player they should put a first refusal/buy back clause in the contract if they are so unhappy that the club they sold the player too can sell the player for what they like.

No, the owners don't decide - that's the point. Whilst you or I may not be able to say, other bodies may do - a court for example, that Vorm was worth x in this case.