January 2024 transfer window thread.

[greco wolf]

Four more PL wins

Sorry, that’s all that matters in this financial ****show of a season

3 will do it, probably 2

 

[Ponty]

3 will do it, probably 2

Beat Luton at home may we’ll be enough.

 

[Wolferoo]

Like most other lower tables teams, we can be thankful the three promoted teams are so poor. It seems like most games are a free hit as it’s a relegation free year, unless a points deduction drops you in it.

I think this is being a little unfair to our team. Our points return would be good enough in any season to have us clear of trouble and that’s not forgetting the points we’ve been robbed of from poor decisions.

 

[Madmalc]

Four more PL wins

Sorry, that’s all that matters in this financial ****show of a season

With two teams looking at points deductions I think we're safe now.
We know the bar has been set at 10 points for a first offence, who knows what they'll be for a second.
Then we have Chelsea admitting irregularities and with a massive player spend probably on thin ice with FFP. Not to mention Man City.
The only real danger would be if they decide to shrink the size of the Premier league.

 

[Ned]

I do understand the thought process from fellow fans that we could be throwing away potential fantastic league position. But I’d rather not sign the wrong players just for the sake of numbers, we’ve been there done that.

 

[WISAW]

I've always liked Bamford, would love him or Che Adams here.

 

[topcat99]

Like most other lower tables teams, we can be thankful the three promoted teams are so poor. It seems like most games are a free hit as it’s a relegation free year, unless a points deduction drops you in it.

Welcome to the wacky world of Nottingham Forest.

 

[Bostin]

Not shooting the messenger but if that is the level we are shopping at we are in real yellow reduced labels at Lidl territory.

As a third choice striker? I'd be happy with either of those personally

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

What I don't really understand is how there's no money. Supposedly at least we didn't want to sell Nunes (even though it enabled us to massively improve the overall squad and still be better off financially). So presumably we didn't have to and we haven't spent all that money. We've loaned out some big wage earners. So Broja (just for example, not saying I think he's the one!) on a loan to buy in the Summer in 24/25 financially, should be fine shouldn't it? Unless Chelsea want the money in 23/24. Or maybe we just think June will be a fire sale and we'll get much better value.

 

[WolfLing]

I do understand the thought process from fellow fans that we could be throwing away potential fantastic league position. But I’d rather not sign the wrong players just for the sake of numbers, we’ve been there done that.

Exactly. The last few windows have been so good because we've signed the right players, at the right time, and at the right price.

 

[loppers86]

We are a premier league team. We have a full house every week. We have recently spent £35m on an 18-year old and £28m on somebody who wanted out before he even arrived. We sold over £100m worth of players less than 6 months ago and reduced our wage bill by millions.

Our reserve keeper couldn’t get a game for Bristol City and our 3rd choice is so bad we would probably play Kilman in goal if the other two were injured.

We don’t have a number 9 who
has scored a single league goal and we can’t even afford to bring in a championship cast off striker.

Just look at those facts and let them sink in.

The only fair way to describe how our senior management have acted to get ourselves into such a position is ‘gross incompetence and negligence’.

This is indisputable.

 

[Thank you Sir Jack]

see we were linked to diallo and jota yesterday two sensible loan options if we can get them done as plan bs

"Plan bs"? Be careful, the "buy anybody now or I will have a funny turn" brigade might misinterpret that from the intended "plan b's".

 

[Hoganstolemywife]

Looks like the Forest fallout is really really hitting every bottom half team (and some top half). Clubs are scared to spend money at the moment as Forest are flinging poop at everyone.

Grateful that our league position means we're going to be alright this year!

 

[tonto]

Exactly. The last few windows have been so good because we've signed the right players, at the right time, and at the right price.

Thank you Mr Hobbs….god riddance to Mr Sellars

 

[Northampton_wolf]

Looks like the Forest fallout is really really hitting every bottom half team (and some top half). Clubs are scared to spend money at the moment as Forest are flinging poop at everyone.

Grateful that our league position means we're going to be alright this year!

Nuno at presser was like yes want to bring in but need to massively trim

 

[fleck1]

I think this is being a little unfair to our team. Our points return would be good enough in any season to have us clear of trouble and that’s not forgetting the points we’ve been robbed of from poor decisions.

I'm sure I have read we have the same number of points at this point as Nuno had in our two 7th place seasons. So definitely feels a little harsh on the players and GON.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Have I missed Newcastle in meltdown? My twitter feed seems to entirely consist of Romano quoting Howe as saying he'd like to keep players, but it's not in his control - Joelinton, Almeiron, Wilson...? Of course if any of them go to Saudi a whole new range of questions (especially if it's a part-ex for Neves!

 

[Werewolf of Wombourne]

Like most other lower tables teams, we can be thankful the three promoted teams are so poor. It seems like most games are a free hit as it’s a relegation free year, unless a points deduction drops you in it.

Like other have said, that's really not the case. Since the formation of the Premier League the lowest position our current points total would have us is 12th. In the majority of seasons we would be comfortably in the top 10, so the idea that we are lucky the relegated sides are so poor this season is way off the mark. We would be nowhere near relegation in any season.

 

[WKFWolf]

not a transfer as such but Klopp leaving Liverpool end of season - real shock

 

[hollo]

Goodbye Mr Miserable

 

[wolvesjoe]

Bamford is a very good player, who has been a little unlucky with longterm injuries.
Would be a very good signing in the current situation if he was properly fit, but
I cant see Leeds selling when they are very much involved in the promotion struggle.

 

[WolfLing]

What I don't really understand is how there's no money. Supposedly at least we didn't want to sell Nunes (even though it enabled us to massively improve the overall squad and still be better off financially). We've loan out some big wage earners. So Broja (just for example, not saying I think he's the one!) on a loan to buy in the Summer in 24/25 financially, should be fine shouldn't it? Unless Chelsea want the money in 23/24. Or maybe we just think June will be a fire sale and we'll get much better value.

I don't think it's about there being no money, I think value is very important to us now because we've not had value from deals we've done in the recent past, and we are still carrying the burden of that.

There's a couple of aspects we need to pay attention to financially, the rolling losses, and the squad cost rules.

I think from the players we've sold, we are now fine when it comes to rolling losses, as our profit this season will be more than enough.

But I think it's more about the squad cost rules where we need to be careful.

I estimate that our total amortised transfer costs for our current squad is sitting at around £45m per season.

I also estimate our current wage bill is sitting at around £55m per season.

Our revenues were last reported as £165m, so going into next season our total spend on amortised transfer fees, plus wages can't be more than 80% of this, a £132m limit.

Then the following 24/25 season, it will need to be 70% of revenues, so a limit of £115.5m.

With the estimated £45m amortised fees, plus £55m wages coming to £100m, we are well below both the 80% for next season and the 70% for the season after, based on the current squad of players.

But the problem comes in that we are still carrying a lot of cost for the dead wood.

I estimate the remaining amortisation on the players we have out on loan to be around £18.5m per season (Guedes £5.2m, Podence £2m, Fabio £6m, Kalajdzic £3.2m, others around £2m). Plus another £15m in wages on top.

So another £33.5m on top of the figures above if we can't move them on and they come back to the club and we pay their full wages.

That puts us above the squad cost rules for next season, £133.5m against a limit of £132m, and that's assuming revenues remain unchanged.

It's highly unlikely they will come back and play for us, but it's been mentioned many times about there potentially being a lot of selling clubs this summer, but perhaps not many buyers. What if we commit to a big option or obligation now, only to find we can't shift a lot of the loan players in the summer? Either on loan with their wages covered, or permanently?

We could find ourselves in a position where we are letting players leave for less than their value just to satisfy the squad cost rules. Players that were already bad value for us, become even worse value.

I think spending this summer will be largely reliant on getting fees for the players on loan, to remove their amortisation and wages from the equation and give us a bit more headroom going into the 80% and 70% squad cost seasons.

A couple of new contracts could bring our amortisation for the current squad down a bit. But even then, if you look at where we are to where we need to be for 25/26, there's not a huge amount we can spend before we are close.

A £20m player on a 5 year deal and £50k a week adds £6.6m per year to our amortisation costs + wages.

Assuming the estimates of operating at around £100m at the moment (current squad), with that brought down a bit by some extended contracts, we're probably only looking at 2, maybe 3 maximum in that range to take us up the the limit for 25/26, £115.5m (70% of revenues).

 

[WKFWolf]

I don't think it's about there being no money, I think value is very important to us now because we've not had value from deals we've done in the recent past, and we are still carrying the burden of that.

There's a couple of aspects we need to pay attention to financially, the rolling losses, and the squad cost rules.

I think from the players we've sold, we are now fine when it comes to rolling losses, as our profit this season will be more than enough.

But I think it's more about the squad cost rules where we need to be careful.

I estimate that our total amortised transfer costs for our current squad is sitting at around £45m per season.

I also estimate our current wage bill is sitting at around £55m per season.

Our revenues were last reported as £165m, so going into next season our total spend on amortised transfer fees, plus wages can't be more than 80% of this, a £132m limit.

Then the following 24/25 season, it will need to be 70% of revenues, so a limit of £115.5m.

With the estimated £45m amortised fees, plus £55m wages coming to £100m, we are well below both the 80% for next season and the 70% for the season after, based on the current squad of players.

But the problem comes in that we are still carrying a lot of cost for the dead wood.

I estimate the remaining amortisation on the players we have out on loan to be around £18.5m per season (Guedes £5.2m, Podence £2m, Fabio £6m, Kalajdzic £3.2m, others around £2m). Plus another £15m in wages on top.

So another £33.5m on top of the figures above if we can't move them on and they come back to the club and we pay their full wages.

That puts us above the squad cost rules for next season, £133.5m against a limit of £132m, and that's assuming revenues remain unchanged.

It's highly unlikely they will come back and play for us, but it's been mentioned many times about there potentially being a lot of selling clubs this summer, but perhaps not many buyers. What if we commit to a big option or obligation now, only to find we can't shift a lot of the loan players in the summer? Either on loan with their wages covered, or permanently?

We could find ourselves in a position where we are letting players leave for less than their value just to satisfy the squad cost rules. Players that were already bad value for us, become even worse value.

I think spending this summer will be largely reliant on getting fees for the players on loan, to remove their amortisation and wages from the equation and give us a bit more headroom going into the 80% and 70% squad cost seasons.

A couple of new contracts could bring our amortisation for the current squad down a bit. But even then, if you look at where we are to where we need to be for 25/26, there's not a huge amount we can spend before we are close.

A £20m player on a 5 year deal and £50k a week adds £6.6m per year to our amortisation costs + wages.

Assuming the estimates of operating at around £100m at the moment (current squad), with that brought down a bit by some extended contracts, we're probably only looking at 2, maybe 3 maximum in that range to take us up the the limit for 25/26, £115.5m (70% of revenues).

great post, this needs to be pinned somewhere

 

[wolvesjoe]

Small time Jeff strikes again.....

I honestly think this demonstrates who really pulls the strings. The Chinese Government. Really? I think they have bigger problems in China than to have any time or interest for a football club somewhere in England.

www.molineuxmix.co.uk

Weirdly similar situation, where the chances of an exciting second half to the season, with challenges for 6th place and
a cup run were on the cards. Only for the board to completely wreck those chances with self-imposed failures of decisions.

The failure to act positively in that January arguably led directly to the following season's implosion and near-relegation.

It would be even more of a failure this season, as the team is better today than January 2022, more integrated, more energy,
better balance.

Two wins in the next two games and Wolves will be three points off sixth place, in the fifth round of the cup, and above ManU
and Chelsea in the league.

There are far too many fans, who accept the owner's negligence to do all that is possible to take advantage of this moment.

 

[Werewolf of Wombourne]

Just a question, do any of the financial experts out there know if the club have factored in a possible European place finish in their calculations? If we did we'd come under UEFA FFP again and I don't know whether that would have a major impact on our position after taking the hit we did this season

 

[WolfLing]

Just a question, do any of the financial experts out there know if the club have factored in a possible European place finish in their calculations? If we did we'd come under UEFA FFP again and I don't know whether that would have a major impact on our position after taking the hit we did this season

UEFA have significantly relaxed their break-even losses rules now and their regulations are now more focused on the squad cost rules.

 

[Aurum Lupus]

Id take anything coming out of the club and GON at the moment with a pinch of salt and judge the window when its closed. We know we are operating on a limited budget and most would expect the window to move a little this week, so potentially freeing up players to move and some loan options. Gary could well be being genuine but may also as likely playing the pauper to drive a deal down.

Some people just don't understand positioning in a negotiation! I once sold an old car, all I was asking for was £500. The guy came round, looked at it, said he wanted to buy it, then pulled out the biggest wad of cash you ever seen and tried to offer me £350. Unsurprisingly I laughed at him and told him the price was £500 take it or leave it.

I wanted it off the drive, and would probably have taken £350, but his largesse undid him.

We're in a similar position to the guy, we want the best deal possible, so should be pleading poverty. Whether that's true or not is immaterial, its a negotiating tactic!

Yes it might mean we don't get a number 9, but it's better than having our pants pulled down when there is such a focus on fiscal responsibility

 

[North West Wanderer]

Small time Jeff strikes again.....

I honestly think this demonstrates who really pulls the strings. The Chinese Government. Really? I think they have bigger problems in China than to have any time or interest for a football club somewhere in England.

www.molineuxmix.co.uk

Weirdly similar situation, where the chances of an exciting second half to the season, with challenges for 6th place and
a cup run were on the cards. Only for the board to completely wreck those chances with self-imposed failures of decisions.

The failure to act positively in that January arguably led directly to the following season's implosion and near-relegation.

It would be even more of a failure this season, as the team is better today than January 2022, more integrated, more energy,
better balance.

Two wins in the next two games and Wolves will be three points off sixth place, in the fifth round of the cup, and above ManU
and Chelsea in the league.

There are far too many fans, who accept the owner's negligence to do all that is possible to take advantage of this moment.

if they won’t spend they won’t spend, if money is tight it is tight.
i don’t like it but that’s where we are

 

[TelfordWolf]

https://x.com/jordruss7/status/1750652277386362912?s=46&t=CFjCLWqov75A52LoqvRXUw

Sometimes shares snippets of team news in advance, so this could be somewhere in the middle between this thread and rumours from the pub.

Makes no sense. We were looking at Bamford when he was crap and out of form - suddenly come into form and we're no longer interested. Brill!

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

What I don't really understand is how there's no money. Supposedly at least we didn't want to sell Nunes (even though it enabled us to massively improve the overall squad and still be better off financially). So presumably we didn't have to and we haven't spent all that money. We've loaned out some big wage earners. So Broja (just for example, not saying I think he's the one!) on a loan to buy in the Summer in 24/25 financially, should be fine shouldn't it? Unless Chelsea want the money in 23/24. Or maybe we just think June will be a fire sale and we'll get much better value.

It is without doubt financially viable from a PSR perspective, as you say.

Which is why O'Neil has put out there that it could be a club decision to decide on Tuesday that we couldn't afford a 'certain type' of player.

Like you, this does not mean I am endorsing signing Broja for £30m, for clarity.

 

[wolvesjoe]

I don't think it's about there being no money, I think value is very important to us now because we've not had value from deals we've done in the recent past, and we are still carrying the burden of that.

There's a couple of aspects we need to pay attention to financially, the rolling losses, and the squad cost rules.

I think from the players we've sold, we are now fine when it comes to rolling losses, as our profit this season will be more than enough.

But I think it's more about the squad cost rules where we need to be careful.

I estimate that our total amortised transfer costs for our current squad is sitting at around £45m per season.

I also estimate our current wage bill is sitting at around £55m per season.

Our revenues were last reported as £165m, so going into next season our total spend on amortised transfer fees, plus wages can't be more than 80% of this, a £132m limit.

Then the following 24/25 season, it will need to be 70% of revenues, so a limit of £115.5m.

With the estimated £45m amortised fees, plus £55m wages coming to £100m, we are well below both the 80% for next season and the 70% for the season after, based on the current squad of players.

But the problem comes in that we are still carrying a lot of cost for the dead wood.

I estimate the remaining amortisation on the players we have out on loan to be around £18.5m per season (Guedes £5.2m, Podence £2m, Fabio £6m, Kalajdzic £3.2m, others around £2m). Plus another £15m in wages on top.

So another £33.5m on top of the figures above if we can't move them on and they come back to the club and we pay their full wages.

That puts us above the squad cost rules for next season, £133.5m against a limit of £132m, and that's assuming revenues remain unchanged.

It's highly unlikely they will come back and play for us, but it's been mentioned many times about there potentially being a lot of selling clubs this summer, but perhaps not many buyers. What if we commit to a big option or obligation now, only to find we can't shift a lot of the loan players in the summer? Either on loan with their wages covered, or permanently?

We could find ourselves in a position where we are letting players leave for less than their value just to satisfy the squad cost rules. Players that were already bad value for us, become even worse value.

I think spending this summer will be largely reliant on getting fees for the players on loan, to remove their amortisation and wages from the equation and give us a bit more headroom going into the 80% and 70% squad cost seasons.

A couple of new contracts could bring our amortisation for the current squad down a bit. But even then, if you look at where we are to where we need to be for 25/26, there's not a huge amount we can spend before we are close.

A £20m player on a 5 year deal and £50k a week adds £6.6m per year to our amortisation costs + wages.

Assuming the estimates of operating at around £100m at the moment (current squad), with that brought down a bit by some extended contracts, we're probably only looking at 2, maybe 3 maximum in that range to take us up the the limit for 25/26, £115.5m (70% of revenues).

There is a confusion or paradox at the heart of the new regualtions to be worked out.

There are two sets of restrictions: one on overall allowable losses, which is set at an average of 35m a year over any given three year period, (ie 105m over three years)

At the same time, the PSR regulations stipulate that there is a 70% limit on player and agent expenditures, (90% this year, 80% next, 70% for season 25/26).

But do allowable losses mean that more than 70% can be spent on players, in terms of wages and amortisations??

At 70% limit, then almost all clubs will actually be operating at a profit on turnover, and will have no use for any allowable losses?

But, on the other hand, if allowable losses can be used on players' costs, then the 70% figure will be based on turnover including a 35m average loss.

There is a very big gap between those two ways of calculating, and if the second interpretation is correct, then owners who are prepared to support the full allowable losses will be critical in giving their clubs an advantage in the player market of the next period.

 

[Rubberball]

I don't think it's about there being no money, I think value is very important to us now because we've not had value from deals we've done in the recent past, and we are still carrying the burden of that.

There's a couple of aspects we need to pay attention to financially, the rolling losses, and the squad cost rules.

I think from the players we've sold, we are now fine when it comes to rolling losses, as our profit this season will be more than enough.

But I think it's more about the squad cost rules where we need to be careful.

I estimate that our total amortised transfer costs for our current squad is sitting at around £45m per season.

I also estimate our current wage bill is sitting at around £55m per season.

Our revenues were last reported as £165m, so going into next season our total spend on amortised transfer fees, plus wages can't be more than 80% of this, a £132m limit.

Then the following 24/25 season, it will need to be 70% of revenues, so a limit of £115.5m.

With the estimated £45m amortised fees, plus £55m wages coming to £100m, we are well below both the 80% for next season and the 70% for the season after, based on the current squad of players.

But the problem comes in that we are still carrying a lot of cost for the dead wood.

I estimate the remaining amortisation on the players we have out on loan to be around £18.5m per season (Guedes £5.2m, Podence £2m, Fabio £6m, Kalajdzic £3.2m, others around £2m). Plus another £15m in wages on top.

So another £33.5m on top of the figures above if we can't move them on and they come back to the club and we pay their full wages.

That puts us above the squad cost rules for next season, £133.5m against a limit of £132m, and that's assuming revenues remain unchanged.

It's highly unlikely they will come back and play for us, but it's been mentioned many times about there potentially being a lot of selling clubs this summer, but perhaps not many buyers. What if we commit to a big option or obligation now, only to find we can't shift a lot of the loan players in the summer? Either on loan with their wages covered, or permanently?

We could find ourselves in a position where we are letting players leave for less than their value just to satisfy the squad cost rules. Players that were already bad value for us, become even worse value.

I think spending this summer will be largely reliant on getting fees for the players on loan, to remove their amortisation and wages from the equation and give us a bit more headroom going into the 80% and 70% squad cost seasons.

A couple of new contracts could bring our amortisation for the current squad down a bit. But even then, if you look at where we are to where we need to be for 25/26, there's not a huge amount we can spend before we are close.

A £20m player on a 5 year deal and £50k a week adds £6.6m per year to our amortisation costs + wages.

Assuming the estimates of operating at around £100m at the moment (current squad), with that brought down a bit by some extended contracts, we're probably only looking at 2, maybe 3 maximum in that range to take us up the the limit for 25/26, £115.5m (70% of revenues).

I think your figures are out. The £45m amortised fees include the deadwood and the £55m wage also includes them too.

That puts us at an operating FFP profit for this and the next two seasons even if we just let the deadwood contacts expire (which we won't).

 

[wolvesjoe]

if they won’t spend they won’t spend, if money is tight it is tight.
i don’t like it but that’s where we are

No, these are decision-making mistakes of the highest order.

Fosun messed up in January 22, then had to deal with the fallout of that the following season, by
spending on a grand scale to just keep the club in the Premier league.

Text book example of short-term thinking.

 

[WolfLing]

At 70% limit, then almost all clubs will actually be operating at a profit on turnover, and will have no use for any allowable losses?

I think that might be part of the plan.

But I still don't think most clubs would turn any significant profit at the 70% level. Maybe that level has been set as most clubs would be close to break even at that point? Which is really where football needs to get to.

 

[Coops]

Any stranger things fans?

View attachment 40030

to me more like a thinner version of;

 

[hollo]

How much will we get for the dead wood? I suppose podence could go for 10 million. He is out the olympiocos team at the moment though.

 

[WolfLing]

I think your figures are out. The £45m amortised fees include the deadwood and the £55m wage also includes them too.

That puts us at an operating FFP profit for this and the next two seasons even if we just let the deadwood contacts expire (which we won't).

If you look at the fees and initial contract lengths for all the players in the first team squad, then factor in contract extensions, it comes to about £45m.

There's no way it's only £45m when you include players like Guedes, Sasa, Fabio, Podence etc. Like I say, their amortisation alone is about £18.5m.

 

[Skrilla]

It is without doubt financially viable from a PSR perspective, as you say.

Which is why O'Neil has put out there that it could be a club decision to decide on Tuesday that we couldn't afford a 'certain type' of player.

Like you, this does not mean I am endorsing signing Broja for £30m, for clarity.

If Chelsea wanted a substantial loan fee and any club to take on Broja's full wages, then it could be closer this season than you think. I believe that's the root of the problem. I don't think it is a case of it being "without doubt", because the reality is we don't know how close we are to breaching FFP next season - which is based on 21/22, 22/23, and this year.

 

[wolvesjoe]

I think that might be part of the plan.

But I still don't think most clubs would turn any significant profit at the 70% level. Maybe that level has been set as most clubs would be close to break even at that point? Which is really where football needs to get to.

Obviously it depends on the total turnover. 30% at 400m is 120m and a huge profit, 30% at 150m is 45m still a decent profit.

But if this more stringent interpretation is the actual limit on spending, then we are going to see large scale reductions in wages and transfer fees over the next 3-4 years.

Also worth asking where will those large scale profit margins go. Cheaper tickets, I somehow doubt that, and that will in any case just lower turnover, therefore furthering lower allowable player spending.

The actual meaning and effect of PSR has yet to be seen or understood, imv.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

If Chelsea wanted a substantial loan fee and any club to take on Broja's full wages, then it could be closer this season than you think. I believe that's the root of the problem. I don't think it is a case of it being "without doubt", because the reality is we don't know how close we are to breaching FFP next season - which is based on 21/22, 22/23, and this year.

Well the wages wouldn't be an issue because we've just got rid of 2/3 players that would be on more than him combined. Obviously a loan fee would, but thee was no talk of that. Just a loan with an obligation.