Wolves 22/23 accounts

[BlahBlah]

Reading all of that, it makes total sense to sell Neto this Summer. Can't risk not doing so? As unfortunate as that is.

With these rules, it's actually forcing the business model to increase trade.
Whereas under Nuno the original plan was to buy low and sell high, now it's becoming absolutely essential.

 

[marrs-guitar]

The real question is why did Shi take leave of his senses in summer 2022?

He kept Lage after a terrible end to the previous season, and green lighted spunking millions on Guedes (mediocre player who had been turned down for several years and plainly had little enthusiasm for the move), Nunes (a luxury signing that clubs at our level shouldn't be making) and Sasa who already had one serious knee injury and had no serious alternative bidders as a result.

That was just madness and we are extremely fortunate to have seemingly come through that unscathed - though the squad available to O'Neill as a result is far from unscathed.

I also think we were very lucky to get the fees we did last summer - only De Bruyne getting injured meant Pep panicked and told City to get Nunes (who has been just as poor for them), Neves's fee was solely due to the new Saudi push with their domestic league (and him being open to going there) and quite why Brentford - a generally prudent operator in the transfer market - decided to make Nathan Collins their record signing will always remain puzzling.

We can only hope with Hobbs at the helm that things will return to some level of sanity now.

 

[Skrilla]

I can see Neto and RAN going personally before Kilman or Gomes
We have to sell to buy thats a fact,lets hope theres more Gomes type buys out there

RAN has a clause that means we'd have to pay 50% of any profit to Angers, or pay them £10m upfront. I don't think there's much profit to be had there, it would take a huge fee.

 

[Jawwfc]

RAN has a clause that means we'd have to pay 50% of any profit to Angers, or pay them £10m upfront. I don't think there's much profit to be had there, it would take a huge fee.

Agree I think Neto is the most likely as difficult as it is to accept, he would be near enough pure profit with the highest value.

We do have a lot of saleable assets in the squad so not overly worried, a lot was spent in last January which kept our status, I expect more Gomes than Cunhas going forward and I'm comfortable with that as we seem to have a decent scouting set up and a guy who knows what he's doing running transfers.

 

[Nige100]

I think if we sell Neto or Kilman for a substantial fee, we'd have a lot more room to maneuver, as any fee for either of them is pure profit. If we don't, I think we'll continue to be prudent and target the £5-15m market to fill the gaps in the squad. I certainly wouldn't expect us to spend £30-40m on a player without one of the above two going.

Another one is possibly Joao Gomes, having seen ball-winning midfielders go for an absolute fortune last summer (Caicedo and Rice both went for upwards of £100m). I'd absolutely hate to lose him though.

Definitely think with 1 more season performing as he is and now a Brazilian International Gomes becomes the £100m player I think he could be.

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

Definitely think with 1 more season performing as he is and now a Brazilian International Gomes becomes the £100m player I think he could be.

I think he has already trebled what we paid for him right now

 

[hankin]

Good article

Wolves set to avoid rules breach despite big losses

Wolves believe they will avoid any Premier League financial charges after filing accounts showing significant losses for 2022-23.

www.bbc.co.uk

£50m for Jota

....and £43 m for Gibbs-White.

 

[Bill McCai]

....and £43 m for Gibbs-White.

It does not say that.

 

[oldgoldheart]

The 2022/23 accounts weren’t the main issue as it was a loss replacing a loss (2019/20 was a £40m loss which is the year this replaced).

It was always about 2023/24 because that year will be replacing a profit from 2020/21. To take an operating loss of £100m and turn that to a net profit to meet FFP required huge changes as per the summer.

The biggest positive is that by making those changes the 2024/25 year will see us under far less pressure than we were which falls in line with Shi’s comments about us being less restricted this coming summer.

Then it’ll be a case of what their appetite is to spend again this summer rather than FFP dictating our position.

To be in a position where by a club earning £168m lose £100m before player sales is ridiculous though, we should never have put ourselves in that position if the rhetoric is they want the club to be sustainable, because that isn’t.

all good points but tbh £168m is only a small/medium business really. I looked at Fosun recently and their market cap is also quite small so its not like we or they have that much heft. the problem is wages and agents and transfer fees. i think Chelsea might find themselves in trouble down the line as they have all those 8 year deals. that must bite them eventually

 

[oldgoldheart]

The real question is why did Shi take leave of his senses in summer 2022?

He kept Lage after a terrible end to the previous season, and green lighted spunking millions on Guedes (mediocre player who had been turned down for several years and plainly had little enthusiasm for the move), Nunes (a luxury signing that clubs at our level shouldn't be making) and Sasa who already had one serious knee injury and had no serious alternative bidders as a result.

That was just madness and we are extremely fortunate to have seemingly come through that unscathed - though the squad available to O'Neill as a result is far from unscathed.

I also think we were very lucky to get the fees we did last summer - only De Bruyne getting injured meant Pep panicked and told City to get Nunes (who has been just as poor for them), Neves's fee was solely due to the new Saudi push with their domestic league (and him being open to going there) and quite why Brentford - a generally prudent operator in the transfer market - decided to make Nathan Collins their record signing will always remain puzzling.

We can only hope with Hobbs at the helm that things will return to some level of sanity now.

spot on. all this was entirely predictable so I never understood the whole "no one knew" story at the end of the season

 

[StaffordWolf]

Good article

Wolves set to avoid rules breach despite big losses

Wolves believe they will avoid any Premier League financial charges after filing accounts showing significant losses for 2022-23.

www.bbc.co.uk

£50m for Jota

Lovely stuff.

 

[Rubberball]

So many people getting so much wrong.

The player registrations sold this season and the wage cuts have made us both sustainable and covered the losses, especially when Fosun convert their loans to equity.

Should put us back to roughly break even.

That's Fosun's reset plan. It's only cost them £198m to do it!

(Which they'll get back on any sale of the club).

I presume any transfer dealings in the future will be driven by player sales and the wages capped to bring all operations to break even.

Sensible business strategy if not one for success in football.

 

[Flump]

I don’t see how losing £184k a day is sustainable
Looks to me like we’re in a bit of a hole ??

We're not losing it on a daily basis, that's e.g. Nunes & Hwang's fees divided by 365..

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

@WeAreTheWolvesII as someone who was very vociferous about FFP not being the sole driver of last summer you may be interest to read the quote from @Bill McCai in post 21 above.

Essentially after the summer exodus Wolves expect to come in £2.7m inside the £105m allowable losses even with mass sales and very few purchases. That plus the detail in the accounts about Fosun injecting £64m in 2022/23 and a further £18m so far in 2023/24 should put to bed the idea that Fosun pulled the plug and FFP was easy to hide behind.

If you want an angle to question the club on, a better one would probably be how did we get ourselves in to such a mess financially, why we didn’t sell players at their peak and why were we making big money signings that weren’t sustainable.

Let’s hope this summer when we are less restricted we’re far smarter about how and where we spend, and about how and when we sell.

To be fair it's not going to be £2.7m. That's the worst case scenario which is not going to play out.

But yes I agree with the tone of your post. How are we on course to lose £22m in the 23/24 season though?

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

£52m in potential add-ons for players we have on our books.

Anyone care to break that down? Maybe we shouldn't be celebrating those international call-ups?

 

[Dingle Chris]

RAN has a clause that means we'd have to pay 50% of any profit to Angers, or pay them £10m upfront. I don't think there's much profit to be had there, it would take a huge fee.

I wonder what would happen if we did a swap deal with RAN? Would be a bit of grunts trick though.

 

[hankin]

It does not say that.

It does in The Athletic article.

 

[Dingle Chris]

To be fair it's not going to be £2.7m. That's the worst case scenario which is not going to play out.

But yes I agree with the tone of your post. How are we on course to lose £22m in the 23/24 season though?

It’s madness really. Football needs to wake up.

If teams in the richest league in the world can’t make a profit even when selling some of their best players and not buying replacements something is inherently wrong. Can’t wait to see Forests accounts!

 

[Bill McCai]

It does in The Athletic article.

No it doesnt.

It says - Player sales, including Morgan Gibbs-White’s departure to Nottingham Forest, raised £43.9million.

 

[Bill McCai]

The £105m acceptable loss needs to be increased really. I'm not sure when it was set but with inflation I'm sure it should be nearer £200m now.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

The £105m acceptable loss needs to be increased really. I'm not sure when it was set but with inflation I'm sure it should be nearer £200m now.

It's very much going to go the other way. It makes no sense to have half the league working on 70% of income on player costs and the rest working on 100%+ (or 131% as apparently we did).

 

[Wisdomwolf]

RAN has a clause that means we'd have to pay 50% of any profit to Angers, or pay them £10m upfront. I don't think there's much profit to be had there, it would take a huge fee.

We can exercise that obligation at point, so no rush. Hypothetically, we can sell him and a week before pay the £10m.

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

The £105m acceptable loss needs to be increased really. I'm not sure when it was set but with inflation I'm sure it should be nearer £200m now.

How can any loss be acceptable?
In any other business model if you are losing the sums that football clubs are on a regular basis you would be declared bankrupt

 

[Streathamwolf]

“What else do we know?​

Wolves owners Fosun loaned the club a further £64million in 2022-23 with that loan due to be conveyed to equity in the next few weeks.

That money is not factored into PSR calculations as PSR is designed to prevent owners from bankrolling clubs.

Fosun has provided another loan worth £18million in the current financial year.“

Interesting that fosun are still bank rolling us - should stop anyone going on that fosun have us to make a profit.

I wish! You are correct of course.

 

[Darvo]

How can we be predicting such a high loss for 23/24 when that includes the sale of Neves and Nunes?

 

[Monketron]

£52m in potential add-ons for players we have on our books.

Anyone care to break that down? Maybe we shouldn't be celebrating those international call-ups?

I'd imagine International call ups will increase a players value far more than what we'd pay in add-ons for it.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

I'd imagine International call ups will increase a players value far more than what we'd pay in add-ons for it.

Yes, I was half joking, but there's no recognition in the accounts of an increase in value until we sell a player.

Genuinely don't know where that £52m potential liability is allocated?

 

[Monketron]

Yes, I was half joking, but there's no recognition in the accounts of an increase in value until we sell a player.

Genuinely don't know where that £52m potential liability is allocated?

Amortisation on all our signings I guess? We spent a lot last few years.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Amortisation on all our signings I guess? We spent a lot last few years.

There's £52m of potential liability on top of the £188m we are definitely committed to paying other clubs on staggered payments though. Dependent on the performance of players we already have (or possibly the team - making Europe etc?).

 

[Rowzed]

Good article

Wolves set to avoid rules breach despite big losses

Wolves believe they will avoid any Premier League financial charges after filing accounts showing significant losses for 2022-23.

www.bbc.co.uk

£50m for Jota

Yes, there were some pretty good clauses in there, Liverpool got a good player and we got fair value (at mid-Covid prices)

 

[Chris H]

To be fair it's not going to be £2.7m. That's the worst case scenario which is not going to play out.

But yes I agree with the tone of your post. How are we on course to lose £22m in the 23/24 season though?

I should imagine £2.7m was based on finishing 17th which was the apparent target so yes, it won’t be that close in the end but it’s understandable why they planned for that eventuality.

I’ve no idea to be honest, I don’t think those numbers quite add up because a) I agree we shouldn’t lose £22m this season but also b) our losses for 21/22 and 22/23 combined don’t seem to leave us £22m leeway.

Regardless the accounts back up that we were in a poor position, but hopefully we’ve rectified that and can run more balanced and sustainably than the recent feast or famine approach to transfer windows.

 

[brianm]

Why would anyone own a football club? Do any of them make money apart from or 2

I think once they sell up they can do very well.

Operating year to year it's a drain, though.

 

[Darren M (Dazza)]

Footy team as a business. What a joke. It’s a rich man’s toy.

 

[Starsky]

Over the hurdle with the numbers on paper, but Jeff's impact on the squad depth needs some repairing.

 

[Wolf in Kenilworth]

I think once they sell up they can do very well.

Operating year to year it's a drain, though.

Yep, we were bought for £40 million weren’t we?

Not a bad profit to be made if/when they sell us.

I wonder what we’re worth?

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Yep, we were bought for £40 million weren’t we?

Not a bad profit to be made if/when they sell us.

I wonder what we’re worth?

Well from memory
£45m to buy us
£125m in loans converted to equity
another £67m in loans to also convert

Also a fair wedge owed to banks (Maquarrie loans?)

So needs to be £250m + to make anything really.

 

[Wolf in Kenilworth]

Well from memory
£45m to buy us
£125m in loans converted to equity
another £67m in loans to also convert

Also a fair wedge owed to banks (Maquarrie loans?)

So needs to be £250m + to make anything really.

So still a very nice profit then as I’d imagine they’d want £300-£400m?

 

[maws]

Well from memory
£45m to buy us
£125m in loans converted to equity
another £67m in loans to also convert

Also a fair wedge owed to banks (Maquarrie loans?)

So needs to be £250m + to make anything really.

Have they not recouped any of their loan money? Surely we have to pay it back annually

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Have they not recouped any of their loan money? Surely we have to pay it back annually

No, as I understand it (not an accountant!) they basically say they bought an asset (us for £45m), spent £200m on us, and now they have an asset worth £245m. So on the books we've broken even and don't owe them anything.

 

[maws]

No, as I understand it (not an accountant!) they basically say they bought an asset (us for £45m), spent £200m on us, and now they have an asset worth £245m. So on the books we've broken even and don't owe them anything.

As we paid out £10m on interest isn’t that to Fosun??