Welcome Notice

Hello and welcome to Molineux Mix a forum for Wolves fans by Wolves fans.

Register Log in

January 2024 transfer window thread.

steve vena

steve vena

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
6,447
WolfLing said:
This has scrambled my brain a little! Trying to work it all out.

I think it all comes down to any fee covering the remaining amortisation. I don't think it costs us less to loan him out, but there could be reasons why loaning him is beneficial for future book value.

£27.5m fee in summer 2022, on 5 year deal, £5.5m per season.

£22m book value in summer 2023 (£5.5m x remaining 4 years).

Cost to us per season of keeping him here is £5.5m amortised fee, plus £4,680,000 in salary (£90k per week) = £10,180,000 per season.

Cost to us of loaning him out with wages covered is £5.5m a season, a £4,680,000 saving. But for that year in isolation, the wage saving effectively covers most of the amortisation value to get close to a net position for that year he is loaned.

If people were only offering £15m for him in the summer, with £22m book value and 4 years of contract remaining, by selling him, you're locking in that £7m loss for future years.

But if we wait a year, someone else covers his wages and we can get £16.5m for him next summer, there's no loss on the books going forward?

Or failing that, we loan him again and hope someone pays £11m for him in the summer of 2025, or £5.5m for him in the summer of 2026?!

Sound about right?! I need a lie down.
Click to expand...
You are good mate....its double Dutch to me.
 
Wolf in Kenilworth

Wolf in Kenilworth

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
6,283
Reaction score
11,366
WolfLing said:
This has scrambled my brain a little! Trying to work it all out.

I think it all comes down to any fee covering the remaining amortisation. I don't think it costs us less to loan him out, but there could be reasons why loaning him is beneficial for future book value.

£27.5m fee in summer 2022, on 5 year deal, £5.5m per season.

£22m book value in summer 2023 (£5.5m x remaining 4 years).

Cost to us per season of keeping him here is £5.5m amortised fee, plus £4,680,000 in salary (£90k per week) = £10,180,000 per season.

Cost to us of loaning him out with wages covered is £5.5m a season, a £4,680,000 saving. But for that year in isolation, the wage saving effectively covers most of the amortisation value to get close to a net position for that year he is loaned.

If people were only offering £15m for him in the summer, with £22m book value and 4 years of contract remaining, by selling him, you're locking in that £7m loss for future years.

But if we wait a year, someone else covers his wages and we can get £16.5m for him next summer, there's no loss on the books going forward?

Or failing that, we loan him again and hope someone pays £11m for him in the summer of 2025, or £5.5m for him in the summer of 2026?!

Sound about right?! I need a lie down.
Click to expand...

His contract won’t be included in terms of wages. That is stopped at the source if he’s loaned or sold.

You are right in that essentially he’s costing £5.5 million a year (his transfer fee amortised) for the next 3 years when he comes back.
So the break even is roughly £16.5 million sale.
Or we sell him for £10 million, for example, and he is still on our books amortised at the difference for the next 3 years. Or we may be able to account for the full loss in one period (I think).

Either way it’s a shotty transfer and he will be sold in the summer for between £10m and £15m.
 
W

WISAW

Has a lot to say
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
1,880
Reaction score
1,670
WolfLing said:
This has scrambled my brain a little! Trying to work it all out.

I think it all comes down to any fee covering the remaining amortisation. I don't think it costs us less to loan him out, but there could be reasons why loaning him is beneficial for future accounts if we can't sell him for what we need to.

£27.5m fee in summer 2022, on 5 year deal, £5.5m per season.

£22m book value in summer 2023 (£5.5m x remaining 4 years).

Cost to us per season of keeping him here is £5.5m amortised fee, plus £4,680,000 in salary (£90k per week) = £10,180,000 per season.

Cost to us of loaning him out with wages covered is £5.5m a season, a £4,680,000 saving. But for that year in isolation, the wage saving effectively covers most of the amortisation value to get close to a net position for that year he is loaned.

If people were only offering £15m for him in the summer, with £22m book value and 4 years of contract remaining, by selling him, you're locking in that £7m loss for future years.

But if we wait a year, someone else covers his wages and we can get £16.5m for him next summer, there's no loss on the books going forward?

Or failing that, we loan him again and hope someone pays £11m for him in the summer of 2025, or £5.5m for him in the summer of 2026?!

Sound about right?! I need a lie down.
Click to expand...
Mate, thank you!!
 
H

Himleywolf

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
566
Reaction score
832
Northampton_wolf said:
guedes definitely loan, but keen reports nothing in it for buy



After struggling for game time this season and making just 14 appearances in all competitions, Benfica have now agreed to cut the loan short and Villarreal have agreed terms with Wolves on a loan deal until the end of the season.


The move is expected to be completed once a medical is done and it will not include a buy option in the loan deal.

Villarreal will also pay Guedes' full wages for the rest of the season.

The move will allow Guedes to join up with his former Valencia head coach Marcelino, who took over at Villarreal for a second time in November.
Click to expand...
We need him to do well, really well to get rid permanently.
 
A

AndyY

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
6,790
Reaction score
8,509
Slothmonkey said:
For me now unless someone incredible comes available I think we should stick. Give Fraser 6 months with the forst team squad then go again in the summer when we are meant to be more financial free.

I would rather wait and get the right player then rush and get another Grant Holt because we need a body.
Click to expand...
I am just a bit worried about the size and depth of the squad - we have a decent 12/ 13 outfielders probably but beyond that we are struggling. That’s a concern given 2 or 3 injuries or suspensions, and even now, GON’s ability to change things from the bench is pretty limited.
 
Sussex Wolf

Sussex Wolf

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
24,233
Reaction score
33,951
WolfLing said:
This has scrambled my brain a little! Trying to work it all out.

I think it all comes down to any fee covering the remaining amortisation. I don't think it costs us less to loan him out, but there could be reasons why loaning him is beneficial for future accounts if we can't sell him for what we need to.

£27.5m fee in summer 2022, on 5 year deal, £5.5m per season.

£22m book value in summer 2023 (£5.5m x remaining 4 years).

Cost to us per season of keeping him here is £5.5m amortised fee, plus £4,680,000 in salary (£90k per week) = £10,180,000 per season.

Cost to us of loaning him out with wages covered is £5.5m a season, a £4,680,000 saving. But for that year in isolation, the wage saving effectively covers most of the amortisation value to get close to a net position for that year he is loaned.

If people were only offering £15m for him in the summer, with £22m book value and 4 years of contract remaining, by selling him, you're locking in that £7m loss for future years.

But if we wait a year, someone else covers his wages and we can get £16.5m for him next summer, there's no loss on the books going forward?

Or failing that, we loan him again and hope someone pays £11m for him in the summer of 2025, or £5.5m for him in the summer of 2026?!

Sound about right?! I need a lie down.
Click to expand...

Yep, think that’s about the size of it.
 
Sussex Wolf

Sussex Wolf

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
24,233
Reaction score
33,951
clivewolves said:
'Lusting after' is a new one for the transfer window. Do we have to touch his erogenous zones to get him to sign?


https://twitter.com/x/status/1748325686689878372
Click to expand...

Well it’s a new one, I give you that!

Unfortunately we’ve now moved on from the journalistic excellence that is Football Insider to the truly insightful Sport Witness! Outside of the fake Romano accounts and Romano wanabe’s, I’m not sure how much lower we can go? It’s no disrespect on the post, but a sign of the dearth of actual transfer news this January, that we’re all left with news from bottom feeders like this…. :(
 
M

mcfc

Newbie
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
5
Reaction score
6
NothingButNeto said:
Interesting that the Hodge loan is dependent on an incoming as well. Other than Noha (who is more of an attacking midfielder/winger), we haven’t really been linked with any midfielders this window. Maybe the club is working on something behind the scenes for that?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say interesting more foolish. I believe he’s been in a similar situation the last two windows and has hardly played any football as a result.

One can see the benefit of Doyle’s loans to Cardiff and Sheffield United. I can see Hodge progressing the same was with a good loan behind him.
 
NothingButNeto

NothingButNeto

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
2,035
Reaction score
5,414
Sussex Wolf said:
Well it’s a new one, I give you that!

Unfortunately we’ve now moved on from the journalistic excellence that is Football Insider to the truly insightful Sport Witness! Outside of the fake Romano accounts and Romano wanabe’s, I’m not sure how much lower we can go? It’s no disrespect on the post, but a sign of the dearth of actual transfer news this January, that we’re all left with news from bottom feeders like this…. :(
Click to expand...

It’s probably because there isn’t any actual transfer news for us. All the links are bogus - we probably had one conversation about Ekitike/Ings/Che but everything else is agent/paper talk.
 
Leominster_Wolf

Leominster_Wolf

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jul 14, 2018
Messages
4,623
Reaction score
11,803
Ginger Chimp said:
They were laughing (literally) about this on the radio yesterday. They couldn't believe that Chelsea would do something so stupid ... despite all the past evidence they thought this was one step too far.

That Todd Bohely, eh? Crazy antics.
Click to expand...
I saw this the other day and it just about summed Chelsea up for me

'If anyone pays £50m for him though, it's crazy'published at 11:25 18 January
11:25 18 January​

The Telegraph's Luke Edwards believes £50m-rated Armando Broja is not a "top-level striker" and has questioned Chelsea's valuation of the Albania international on the Transfer Gossip Daily podcast: "Lots of managers have had a look at him [at Chelsea] and thought that he's not good enough. I don't want to be brutal but how can they say with a straight face that they will take £60m for him?

"It's being compared to Brighton valuing Evan Ferguson at £100m or Ivan Toney being valued at £100m. I think the Ferguson valuation was too much, but you're not going to get £50m or £60m for a 22-year-old who has scored six goals. That's a waste of money for anyone who does it.

"The irony is Chelsea have tried to drive prices up in the Premier League market over the last two years. They paid £150m for [Moises] Caicedo and £105m for Enzo Fernandez, who both haven't lived up to expectations.

"Maybe they just think that's the going rate so they went and bought some overpriced players and are now thinking, 'let's go and fleece someone like Fulham or Wolves.

"Broja hasn't won anything and he's not done anything at Chelsea to suggest he is that sort of player. He's not particularly done anything at international level but, he's 22-years-old, he's still young. I think there will be some clubs interested in him, absolutely.

"Now that Chelsea have said he can go, it shows you how much trouble they are in with profit and sustainability rules. They are having to offload players again this window. I suspect they will end up getting a loan deal with the obligation to buy at the end of the season. If anyone pays £50m for him though, it's crazy."
 
W

wolfslair

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
7,002
Reaction score
12,259
Northampton_wolf said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1748351843577594056
Click to expand...

Things you love to hear!

He will get more from being at wolves than risk going on loan and not playing there, which seems to be happening to a few clubs from people I am speaking to……

Some champ and L1 clubs have made it difficult for themselves in the future to get loans from what I am hearing next season from how they have used loans the last couple of years.
 
L

Lobo de Ouro

Has a lot to say
Joined
Jun 23, 2022
Messages
1,074
Reaction score
5,836
Leominster_Wolf said:
I saw this the other day and it just about summed Chelsea up for me

'If anyone pays £50m for him though, it's crazy'published at 11:25 18 January​

11:25 18 January​

The Telegraph's Luke Edwards believes £50m-rated Armando Broja is not a "top-level striker" and has questioned Chelsea's valuation of the Albania international on the Transfer Gossip Daily podcast: "Lots of managers have had a look at him [at Chelsea] and thought that he's not good enough. I don't want to be brutal but how can they say with a straight face that they will take £60m for him?

"It's being compared to Brighton valuing Evan Ferguson at £100m or Ivan Toney being valued at £100m. I think the Ferguson valuation was too much, but you're not going to get £50m or £60m for a 22-year-old who has scored six goals. That's a waste of money for anyone who does it.

"The irony is Chelsea have tried to drive prices up in the Premier League market over the last two years. They paid £150m for [Moises] Caicedo and £105m for Enzo Fernandez, who both haven't lived up to expectations.

"Maybe they just think that's the going rate so they went and bought some overpriced players and are now thinking, 'let's go and fleece someone like Fulham or Wolves.

"Broja hasn't won anything and he's not done anything at Chelsea to suggest he is that sort of player. He's not particularly done anything at international level but, he's 22-years-old, he's still young. I think there will be some clubs interested in him, absolutely.

"Now that Chelsea have said he can go, it shows you how much trouble they are in with profit and sustainability rules. They are having to offload players again this window. I suspect they will end up getting a loan deal with the obligation to buy at the end of the season. If anyone pays £50m for him though, it's crazy."
Click to expand...

I wouldn't trade £255m duo Caicedo and Fernandez for our ~£20m duo of Joao and Mario.

Shows how monumentally wrong Chelsea continue to do things.
 
Aurum Lupus

Aurum Lupus

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
2,499
Reaction score
3,537
wolvesjoe said:
www.theguardian.com

Premier League and beyond: 10 things to look out for this weekend

Arsenal must arrest sliding form, crisis-hit Reading head to Wigan and depleted champions face WSL test
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Scumbag guardian journalists trying to stir the pot around Kilman.
Click to expand...
I can't deny the Guardian is an absolute rag of a paper, but I'm not sure they've said much wrong here. Brighton doing brilliantly and had a break, Wolves with a small squad and interrupted break. Then the fact we're close to FFP so effectively need to sell to do anything, which it looks like we do. However what they miss out is the fact wages seem to be our big problem. If we can get rid of Jonny, we could take someone on loan with an obligation. That however would take more than a cursory glance at us, which journalists don't seem to bother doing anymore.
 
Timberwolf

Timberwolf

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
10,992
Reaction score
9,713
oldgolded said:
Arsenal seem to be keen on a couple of our players at the moment, and it occured to me that we might be able to do some part exchange business with them. Strikers are so in demand and in such short supply that I wondered if we could do a deal for Nketiah. Apparently Arsenal have said that they would listen to offers for him, and whilst I know opinions are divided about him, I think he could be a good signing for us and knows where the back of the net is. Whether he would want to come here is of course unknown.
Click to expand...
Nketiah suffers from being not as good as Saka. I think his career is being stunted because of being at Arsenal and think he’s a great finisher.
 
O

Olivergoldblack

Has a lot to say
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
1,473
Reaction score
2,796
Leominster_Wolf said:
I saw this the other day and it just about summed Chelsea up for me

'If anyone pays £50m for him though, it's crazy'published at 11:25 18 January​

11:25 18 January​

The Telegraph's Luke Edwards believes £50m-rated Armando Broja is not a "top-level striker" and has questioned Chelsea's valuation of the Albania international on the Transfer Gossip Daily podcast: "Lots of managers have had a look at him [at Chelsea] and thought that he's not good enough. I don't want to be brutal but how can they say with a straight face that they will take £60m for him?

"It's being compared to Brighton valuing Evan Ferguson at £100m or Ivan Toney being valued at £100m. I think the Ferguson valuation was too much, but you're not going to get £50m or £60m for a 22-year-old who has scored six goals. That's a waste of money for anyone who does it.

"The irony is Chelsea have tried to drive prices up in the Premier League market over the last two years. They paid £150m for [Moises] Caicedo and £105m for Enzo Fernandez, who both haven't lived up to expectations.

"Maybe they just think that's the going rate so they went and bought some overpriced players and are now thinking, 'let's go and fleece someone like Fulham or Wolves.

"Broja hasn't won anything and he's not done anything at Chelsea to suggest he is that sort of player. He's not particularly done anything at international level but, he's 22-years-old, he's still young. I think there will be some clubs interested in him, absolutely.

"Now that Chelsea have said he can go, it shows you how much trouble they are in with profit and sustainability rules. They are having to offload players again this window. I suspect they will end up getting a loan deal with the obligation to buy at the end of the season. If anyone pays £50m for him though, it's crazy."
Click to expand...
Saw somewhere they were considering paying £100m for ex-Coventry striker Gyorkes! After like half a season in Portugal.
I need to find Tom Boehly, I wonder if he'll swap his prize cow for these magic beans I've got...
 
W

wolfslair

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
7,002
Reaction score
12,259
Lobo de Ouro said:
I wouldn't trade £255m duo Caicedo and Fernandez for our ~£20m duo of Joao and Mario.

Shows how monumentally wrong Chelsea continue to do things.
Click to expand...

Centre mid is one area our recruitment has consistently excelled with in recent years!
 
B

brianm

Has a lot to say
Joined
Aug 17, 2023
Messages
1,187
Reaction score
2,236
Lobo de Ouro said:
I wouldn't trade £255m duo Caicedo and Fernandez for our ~£20m duo of Joao and Mario.

Shows how monumentally wrong Chelsea continue to do things.
Click to expand...
100%. Wolves play them in a couple weeks, and I am zero-percent concerned with how the midfield will go.

If you're going to spend 9 digits (!) on a player, he needs to be van Dijk level dominant imo. Rice for Arsenal just about fits the bill for me. Caicedo is a nice player, but I'm not scared of him as a fan. Same with Enzo.

An order of magnitude difference in transfer fees...
 
W

Wolvessince63

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2017
Messages
410
Reaction score
712
Premier League trio Aston Villa, West Ham United and Wolves are reportedly keen on Semih Kilicsoy with the £22 million-rated Besiktas ace tipped to ‘become a world star’ and follow in the footsteps of Real Madrid’s Arda Guler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom