| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm 10:51 - Jul 21 with 13808 views | JackSomething |
So the Evening Post are reporting (with no quotes or sources) that Gylfi for Ben is a straight swap and will be completed in next few days, while Vorm is going to join Spurs for £2.5m:
http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Swansea-City-defender-Ben-Davies-close-T
So it seems Ben and Gylfi have both been valued at around £10m. What do people think of that (if true)?
Personally, I don't think we would have settled for a straight swap if Pablo was still here. I think the need for an AM is so great that the club felt they had to compromise.
Vorm for £2.5m seems a little on the cheap side. How long was left on his contract? [Post edited 21 Jul 2014 10:52]
|  |
| You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don't help. |
| |  |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 13:50 - Jul 21 with 2249 views | TenkosBlondeWig |
I reckon Vorm won't go to Spurs
He knows he will be on the bench
I have a feeling he will stay with us and fight for his place until he finds a Number 1 first choice spot |  | | |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 13:51 - Jul 21 with 2245 views | Shaky |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 13:37 - Jul 21 by Tom1912 |
Not usual for clubs continue to subsidise wages of players after they've left.
It's not exactly a huge leap to see this is likely to be what's happening here. Spurs want to move Sigurdsson on, Sigurdsson doesn't want to lose the wage he agreed to in his contract with Spurs and we want to sign Sigurdsson but can't afford to match that wage. This compromise works for all parties. |
"Not usual for clubs continue to subsidise wages of players after they've left."
Not at all.
What is unusual is a straight player swap.
What must be even more unusual is a deal that you call a straight player swap, but in fact involves a cash payment. [Post edited 21 Jul 2014 13:52]
|  |
| |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 13:55 - Jul 21 with 2223 views | londonlisa2001 |
doesn't mention the salary arrangements - that part of the deal is between Spurs & Gylfi but just transfers value to us - the money doesn't swap hands between Spurs and the Swans.
This stuff is really not complex finance Shaky - it's just a footballer's contract - I don't quite understand why you can't grasp it? Or perhaps grasping it just makes it harder for you to use as a stick to beat the club about.
Good job the club have a variety of, what is it you call them? ah yes, 'low level pissants' to help them out on these more complicated deals isn't it... |  | | |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 13:57 - Jul 21 with 2211 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 13:51 - Jul 21 by Shaky |
"Not usual for clubs continue to subsidise wages of players after they've left."
Not at all.
What is unusual is a straight player swap.
What must be even more unusual is a deal that you call a straight player swap, but in fact involves a cash payment. [Post edited 21 Jul 2014 13:52]
|
the cash payment would be between Spurs and Gylfi not Spurs and the Swans hence swap for us, but value to us being different.
Is your head hurting Shaky - is this all a bit much for you.... | | | |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:00 - Jul 21 with 2203 views | Shaky |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 13:55 - Jul 21 by londonlisa2001 |
doesn't mention the salary arrangements - that part of the deal is between Spurs & Gylfi but just transfers value to us - the money doesn't swap hands between Spurs and the Swans.
This stuff is really not complex finance Shaky - it's just a footballer's contract - I don't quite understand why you can't grasp it? Or perhaps grasping it just makes it harder for you to use as a stick to beat the club about.
Good job the club have a variety of, what is it you call them? ah yes, 'low level pissants' to help them out on these more complicated deals isn't it... |
This discussion is absolutely pointless except for one thing.
The clear majority of the leaks regarding this deal say it is a straight swap, including the most recent from the Evening Post which also has the likely credibility benefit of being best briefed by the club.
If by some miracle you turn out to be right about this, it would strongly suggest you are in fact some sort of PR lackey for the club, and on that basis I continue to take a mild interest in the outcome. | |
| |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:00 - Jul 21 with 2201 views | JJJack |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 13:32 - Jul 21 by Shaky |
So the real deal as you have personally divined it, is that the agreement comprises a) a player swap; and b) a gift from Mr Levy to Gylfi.
I suggest you immediately inform the Evening Post of their reporting error, with an accompanying note detailing your source (tarrot cards/palm reading/rune casting/delete as appropriate) |
But there isn't a gift is there? It's simply a case of Spurs guaranteeing Gylfi's wages for the remainder of his contract (as he's legally entitled to receive) by form of an upfront payment thereby subsidising what the Swans pay him in weekly wages. Nothing to do with a gift at all. We're not talking about swapping two cleaners on NMW here mate. |  | | |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:07 - Jul 21 with 2158 views | Shaky |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:00 - Jul 21 by JJJack |
But there isn't a gift is there? It's simply a case of Spurs guaranteeing Gylfi's wages for the remainder of his contract (as he's legally entitled to receive) by form of an upfront payment thereby subsidising what the Swans pay him in weekly wages. Nothing to do with a gift at all. We're not talking about swapping two cleaners on NMW here mate. |
Gylfi is entitled to receive whatever somebody is willing to give him.
But Spurs are not **obligated** to pay him anything if they no longer hold his registration.
I suggest you read the story again, which clearly implies there has been a recent revision to the whatever deal may have previously been discussed: http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Swansea-City-defender-Ben-Davies-close-T | |
| |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:10 - Jul 21 with 2146 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:00 - Jul 21 by Shaky |
This discussion is absolutely pointless except for one thing.
The clear majority of the leaks regarding this deal say it is a straight swap, including the most recent from the Evening Post which also has the likely credibility benefit of being best briefed by the club.
If by some miracle you turn out to be right about this, it would strongly suggest you are in fact some sort of PR lackey for the club, and on that basis I continue to take a mild interest in the outcome. |
A PR lackey that can run rings around a financial genius such as yourself - you sure about that  | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:14 - Jul 21 with 2123 views | Shaky |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:10 - Jul 21 by londonlisa2001 |
A PR lackey that can run rings around a financial genius such as yourself - you sure about that |
In your dreams. | |
| |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:18 - Jul 21 with 2105 views | Uxbridge |
I look forward to the 20 pages of continued speculation regarding the financial elements of this deal. Don't let me down folks! |  |
| |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:20 - Jul 21 with 2087 views | Le_Swans |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:07 - Jul 21 by Shaky |
Gylfi is entitled to receive whatever somebody is willing to give him.
But Spurs are not **obligated** to pay him anything if they no longer hold his registration.
I suggest you read the story again, which clearly implies there has been a recent revision to the whatever deal may have previously been discussed: http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Swansea-City-defender-Ben-Davies-close-T |
And yet, Sky Sports at 13:24 have the Vorm deal at around £5m (link below) twice what the ever reliable Post are quoting, no one knows the details, it's all guess work at the moment.
One thing that isn't though is that Huw wouldn't do a deal that wasn't in the best interest of the club both financially and on the playing front, whether people chose to believe that or not is a different matter.
http://www1.skysports.com/transfer-centre/ | | | |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:24 - Jul 21 with 2067 views | JJJack |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:07 - Jul 21 by Shaky |
Gylfi is entitled to receive whatever somebody is willing to give him.
But Spurs are not **obligated** to pay him anything if they no longer hold his registration.
I suggest you read the story again, which clearly implies there has been a recent revision to the whatever deal may have previously been discussed: http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Swansea-City-defender-Ben-Davies-close-T |
You are right on the registration issue of course. However, in this day and age, it;s common for highly paid footballers to receive a "softener" or "top-up" payment from their existing club in order for them to be moved on without losing out financially. Whether this is actually occurring here , I couldn;t really care. We are exchanging a young, relatively unproven full-back for an experienced international goal-scoring midfielder. An absolute no-brainer of a deal for the Swans if ever there was one. Yet again Huw and the lads have got a cracking deal for us which enables us to keep Taylor happy whilst gaining an excellent player who has been treated appallingly by Spurs (a club who have a habit of such behaviour going back decades). | | | |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:33 - Jul 21 with 2041 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:14 - Jul 21 by Shaky |
In your dreams. |
Matt Law
â€@Matt_Law_DT
Davies, Vorm and Sigurdsson transfers are separate, but Swansea essentially make £5m and get Sig back. Palace to miss out | | | |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:49 - Jul 21 with 1978 views | Tom1912 |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 13:44 - Jul 21 by londonlisa2001 |
This sort of deal appears to happen quite frequently at this level.
I think that we're not used to this sort of stuff because we have always plied our trade at lower levels where deals tend to be more straightforward I guess - you want a player, you pay the fee, they move.
There are all sorts of strange details in higher level type transfers - I think that when Adebayor went from Man City to Spurs this type of thing happened and someone said elsewhere on the board that top players often have several sources of income coming in from various clubs (and, indeed, not here but in other countries, are sometimes actually owned by more than one club / source - wasn't there something like that with Borini?) |
I actually meant to say "it's not unusual" which admittedly is a typo that significantly changes my post! | | | |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:52 - Jul 21 with 1971 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:49 - Jul 21 by Tom1912 |
I actually meant to say "it's not unusual" which admittedly is a typo that significantly changes my post! |
yes - realised afterwards - I think we were agreeing anyway :-) | | | |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:57 - Jul 21 with 1827 views | balboajack |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:07 - Jul 21 by Shaky |
Gylfi is entitled to receive whatever somebody is willing to give him.
But Spurs are not **obligated** to pay him anything if they no longer hold his registration.
I suggest you read the story again, which clearly implies there has been a recent revision to the whatever deal may have previously been discussed: http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Swansea-City-defender-Ben-Davies-close-T |
If Gylfi has a contract, then yes Spurs are obligated to pay him his wage for the remainder of his contract whatever happens to his 'playing registration', because that's what it is- a contract.
However, if a player submits a transfer request, then if he does sign for another club he is not entitled to any 'extra' or 'top up' payments from his former club. This obviously doesn't happen often as who puts in a transfer request to move to a lesser-paying club? | | | |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 15:05 - Jul 21 with 1777 views | Neath_Jack |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:57 - Jul 21 by balboajack |
If Gylfi has a contract, then yes Spurs are obligated to pay him his wage for the remainder of his contract whatever happens to his 'playing registration', because that's what it is- a contract.
However, if a player submits a transfer request, then if he does sign for another club he is not entitled to any 'extra' or 'top up' payments from his former club. This obviously doesn't happen often as who puts in a transfer request to move to a lesser-paying club? |
Eh? His Spurs contract is null and void the minute he signs for someone else. So Spurs would not have to pay the extra at all. Now, if Gylfi is saying to Spurs, I will only move if you top up my wages whilst i'm at Swansea, then that is something completely different. Transfer requests are irrelevant. |  |
| |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 15:16 - Jul 21 with 1737 views | Darran |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 14:57 - Jul 21 by balboajack |
If Gylfi has a contract, then yes Spurs are obligated to pay him his wage for the remainder of his contract whatever happens to his 'playing registration', because that's what it is- a contract.
However, if a player submits a transfer request, then if he does sign for another club he is not entitled to any 'extra' or 'top up' payments from his former club. This obviously doesn't happen often as who puts in a transfer request to move to a lesser-paying club? |
I've read some shit on here lately and this is up here with the finest. |  |
| |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 15:34 - Jul 21 with 1665 views | AngelRangelQS |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 15:05 - Jul 21 by Neath_Jack |
Eh? His Spurs contract is null and void the minute he signs for someone else. So Spurs would not have to pay the extra at all. Now, if Gylfi is saying to Spurs, I will only move if you top up my wages whilst i'm at Swansea, then that is something completely different. Transfer requests are irrelevant. |
The way I see it is that spurs want to use gylfi as the bait for us to sell Ben. It is the card that trumps other interested parties and trumps us saying "we don't need to sell, piss off".
In order to make use of this, two things need to happen - 1 - Swans have to want gylfi, which we do. 2 - gylfi happy to join Swansea. If gylfi doesn't want to come here under any circumstances then it's a no go.
Essentially you are then in a position whereby spurs want gylfi to leave, hence want to terminate/breach the contract the signed with him 2 years ago. If they want to do this, they need to pay compensation as per the contract.
Gylfi ends up happy as he gets first team football without losing any money, Swans get gylfi at an affordable price and spurs get Davies and reduce their wage bill by getting 60% of Gylfi's wages off it.
If spurs are pushing gylfi to go then it's potentially a breach of contract and compensation will therefore be due |  | | |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 15:41 - Jul 21 with 1632 views | mattjenkins1990 |
Jesus, I didn't realise it was this hard to understand. Lisa's fingers must be bleeding with the number of times she has had to explain this. |  |
| |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 15:45 - Jul 21 with 1611 views | Neath_Jack |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 15:34 - Jul 21 by AngelRangelQS |
The way I see it is that spurs want to use gylfi as the bait for us to sell Ben. It is the card that trumps other interested parties and trumps us saying "we don't need to sell, piss off".
In order to make use of this, two things need to happen - 1 - Swans have to want gylfi, which we do. 2 - gylfi happy to join Swansea. If gylfi doesn't want to come here under any circumstances then it's a no go.
Essentially you are then in a position whereby spurs want gylfi to leave, hence want to terminate/breach the contract the signed with him 2 years ago. If they want to do this, they need to pay compensation as per the contract.
Gylfi ends up happy as he gets first team football without losing any money, Swans get gylfi at an affordable price and spurs get Davies and reduce their wage bill by getting 60% of Gylfi's wages off it.
If spurs are pushing gylfi to go then it's potentially a breach of contract and compensation will therefore be due |
I think people are trying to second guess what the deal is. The permeations are probably endless.
As for your bit about them paying for breach of contract, i'd imagine that only happens if they are not selling him, just releasing him. Gylfi can stay at Spurs if he doesn't want to move, then see out his contract in the reserves or whatever there, or Spurs release him, then they'd have to pay out.
Anyway, i aint getting into this as nobody knows what the phucking deal is and it's driving me potty reading the what if's and why's. | |
| |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 15:47 - Jul 21 with 1594 views | Darran |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 15:34 - Jul 21 by AngelRangelQS |
The way I see it is that spurs want to use gylfi as the bait for us to sell Ben. It is the card that trumps other interested parties and trumps us saying "we don't need to sell, piss off".
In order to make use of this, two things need to happen - 1 - Swans have to want gylfi, which we do. 2 - gylfi happy to join Swansea. If gylfi doesn't want to come here under any circumstances then it's a no go.
Essentially you are then in a position whereby spurs want gylfi to leave, hence want to terminate/breach the contract the signed with him 2 years ago. If they want to do this, they need to pay compensation as per the contract.
Gylfi ends up happy as he gets first team football without losing any money, Swans get gylfi at an affordable price and spurs get Davies and reduce their wage bill by getting 60% of Gylfi's wages off it.
If spurs are pushing gylfi to go then it's potentially a breach of contract and compensation will therefore be due |
Yes,indeed but it won't even come close to paying up his contract.
This post has been edited by an administrator | |
| |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 15:50 - Jul 21 with 1563 views | tomdickharry |
| Evening Post on Gylfi, Davies and Vorm on 15:16 - Jul 21 by Darran |
I've read some shit on here lately and this is up here with the finest. |
And they haven't even touched on if there is any VAT adjustment involved,if there is that could complicate the onward discussion. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
