Gaffer
Active Member
On a season long loan deal according to the club website. Nothing about an option to buy but French sources are saying there is one.
Last edited by a moderator:
Danhammond1612
New Member
Shame he didn't stay with us this season as I felt he had something to offer us. I wish him well and hopefully he will return to us full of confidence again when we have another crack at the premier league next season 
flashdown
Active Member
With it being a season long loan and Lafferty and Grabban coming in, I'd certainly expect there to be an option to buy. It's a shame he couldn't fit into the tactics of Hughton, or rather Hughton shape his tactics around RvW. Being injured didn't help either. Things could have and should have been a lot different, but I wish him the best at St. Etienne.
K
Keels881
Guest
Decent player in the right team and league, but definitely not for us or English football
Yellow Fever
New Member
Sorry to see him go, but glad that it's been resolved.
Jimmy smith
Active Member
He clearly isn't up to the fight if he is giving up on us that easy. Screw him, time to get behind the guys that want to be here. Hope we get promoted then ditch him anyway
Gaffer
Active Member
It's good that Norwich fans have been so nice to him but I agree with the above. We got totally screwed on this transfer - another Hughton legacy. He's a good poacher against second rate opposition but is totally unsuited to English football. I'll always remember him for this:
When we needed quality that's what he gave us.
Willmeister
New Member
Head it's a good decision, as gaffer says (and shows) above. Heart says I desperately wanted him to stay and bag a hat-trick against the Scum and finally come good. It could and should have been different. I just hope that if what he says on twitter was true we should have given him another chance. People complain about players not being loyal to clubs, but it's a two way street.
Beauseant
Well-Known Member
Don't really see why fans need to abuse the bloke. Yes, he underperformed last year (as so many others did) but has always conducted himself with class and never disrespected the club. Ironically the people taking pops at RvW are often also wetting their pants at the thought of Hoolahan signing a new contract despite his disgraceful slur to the fans at Villa Park.
Last edited by a moderator:
BarclayBoy88
New Member
It looks like a good deal on every front. We get a bit of cash and get his wages off the books, he gets to go to a league where he should score, building his confidence and then we should recoup most of our fee. He's handled everything with a lot of class, he must have been extremely frustrated by everything, I'll be watching with a keen interest. He didn't work out, but no reason to abuse the bloke, no player wants to disappoint and I remember numerous games where he ran himself into the ground for the team.
Paul Handscombe
New Member
If the article saying that we could get a total of £7.25 million plus 20% sell on fee is true that is truly great business by McNally.
£1.25m loan fee (plus ASSE paying all the wages)
£6m transfer fee + 20% sell on if they decide to buy him at end of season.
£1.25m loan fee (plus ASSE paying all the wages)
£6m transfer fee + 20% sell on if they decide to buy him at end of season.
BarclayBoy88
New Member
In the article it does say that it was a similar deal we offered to Sporting to get him.....did we have a sell on clause in there? so if we sell him, do we owe 20% to Sporting?
Wiz
New Member
Good bye.
Yellow Fever
New Member
Excellent deal done by McNally:
"The Canaries have negotiated an up front fee of £1.25m with the Greens paying all of van Wolfswinkel’s salary during his loan stint in France. St Etienne then have an option to seal a permanent move for the 25-year-old for an additional £6m figure, with City also securing a 20pc cut of any future transfer deal should van Wolfswinkel make a success of his spell in Ligue One."
Note that those are pounds not euros.
"The Canaries have negotiated an up front fee of £1.25m with the Greens paying all of van Wolfswinkel’s salary during his loan stint in France. St Etienne then have an option to seal a permanent move for the 25-year-old for an additional £6m figure, with City also securing a 20pc cut of any future transfer deal should van Wolfswinkel make a success of his spell in Ligue One."
Note that those are pounds not euros.
Paul Handscombe
New Member
Isn't that what I just said lol
David Evans
Active Member
Looks like we've brokered a win-win deal for us, this is fantastic business by the club, freeing up his salary will mean extra funds for the transfer fund and I'd like to see us strengthen in defence.
I kind of wanted RVW to stay and tear up the Championship but I wish him all the best and hope this gives him a much needed fresh start.
I guess it is unlikely we will ever see him in a Norwich shirt again.
I kind of wanted RVW to stay and tear up the Championship but I wish him all the best and hope this gives him a much needed fresh start.
I guess it is unlikely we will ever see him in a Norwich shirt again.
Bethnal Yellow and Green
New Member
Personally I see it as lose-lose for Norwich.
If Ricky flops at St Etienne, he'll be back at Norwich, back on the wage bill and almost worthless.
If he is a success, he'll be sold for an additional £6m - which is very cheap.
For me, the real kicker is, Norwich have let potentially the best striker in the Championship leave for £1.25m (+ saved wages). Is it really worth it? I think for that money the club would have been better off keeping him in Norwich (presuming he wanted to stay).
ZLF
Well-Known Member
If he has a good season ( and St Etienne should have, and seem to be clear on how they will get the best from him) the £6m could seem a light as a transfer fee. With the likes of McCormack going for in excess of £11m it could seem we have given him away. Its a decent agreement but to me it seems the PR reason for revealing a fee (when the club have a preference to not disclose) has been won.
The £1.25m loan fee is pretty par for the course (an actual fee, if not the size of it) and relates to not a down payment on the transfer but a fee for using ricky in addition to his wages, For example, Chelsea always insist on a fee for a season long loan.
Agree we wont see him again, neither pleased nor sorry to see him go but wish him success with his future clubs.
The £1.25m loan fee is pretty par for the course (an actual fee, if not the size of it) and relates to not a down payment on the transfer but a fee for using ricky in addition to his wages, For example, Chelsea always insist on a fee for a season long loan.
Agree we wont see him again, neither pleased nor sorry to see him go but wish him success with his future clubs.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Ghost of Michael Theo
New Member
"Potentially" the best striker in the Championship.
If we held onto him, there is also a risk he doesn't adapt and has a season like the one just gone. Meaning we've held onto a striker that has not only cost loads in wages, but had a negative impact on the season. That could end up being more expensive.
I think we've taken the less risky option by getting in proven Championship strikers to replace an unknown quantity that will cost us loads in wages.
I think it is the best we could hope for to help the ultimate goal of this season.
Last edited by a moderator:
splutcho
Moderator
Does mean we'll look rather silly if he bangs in 20 goals for them and we finish 10th.