Dutch side are intent on claiming their 30% of any fee which we received for the Dutchman, but apparently we're saying we didn't get one...
They say you don't get rich signing cheques. This may be true, and that approach can sometimes be used to justify more "hard-nosed" business practices, but it's important to always remember where you came from. That's why this media talk about us seemingly withholding a 30% sell on fee due to Utrecht is slightly disturbing to me.
Now, firstly I can't confirm there is a sell-on fee. I can only go by what's been reported, and it's been reported that one exists. The crux of the matter is the "swap" nature of the transfer involving Vorm, Davies & Sigurdsson, and whether (and if so how much) money changed hands between Tottenham and Swansea.
The stories circulating online claim that the Swans are saying that Vorm moved for nothing as part of the swap deal for Sigurdsson. Utretcht are claiming otherwise. Which is the truth? Who knows. Obviously the Swansea fan in me will always back my club, but I can't help but feeling we're taking our financial scrupulousness to a new level - if indeed it is true that we received a fee for Vorm and we're trying to claim we didn't.
Utrecht's general manager has claimed that he's been told by Huw Jenkins that Vorm moved for free, and that they would take the case to FIFA if we didn't pay up. Here's the quotes on the BBC website in response to that:
"That's unbelievable and unacceptable. Michel is a very reliable goalkeeper in the Premier League. He is 30 years old, in the prime of his life. He still had a two-year contract and has a good reputation.
"Besides that he's a solid member of the Dutch squad. We want to have the 30% as we agreed." Wilco van Schaik - Utrecht's General Manager
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28701743
Don't Dutch people have the best names? Wilco van Schaik?! Outstanding. Anyway, back to the point of the article and he seems pretty convinced that we're trying to pull a fast one, though it's unlikely that we as fans will ever know the exact ins and outs of what's gone on in the "triple transfer swap deal". That makes it hard to know what to feel in regards to this issue.
If we did get a fee for Vorm and we're trying to claim we didn't, that's taking the financial prudence I love so much a step too far. Ok, you drive hard bargains and make sure you're getting the best deal possible, but if we got money for Vorm we should pay up.
It also asks questions about the growing number of "undisclosed" transfer fees, as I'm sure there are lots of sell on fees being put in place when "the next big thing" moves from a small club to a relative giant. It definitely leaves scope for smaller clubs to lose out, but in this instance I can't see it amounting to anything. Financial duress is something the Swans know all too well and I can't imagine we'll withhold funds we owe to anyone at this stage. It'd be awfully disingenuous of us given our recent track record of financial fair play, which has seen us held up as a model to follow on many an occasion.
Do I believe we're fibbing in order to gain a sneaky few million? I don't want to, put it that way. The board have done enough to warrant my respect and faith, and they have it. Fingers crossed, this story will disappear in the near future.