Wolves one of the seven clubs to vote for loans to be allowed from syndicate clubs

[fev123]

Just wanted to say how disappointed I am that Fosun chose to support what is clearly a very corrupt policy of allowing loans from clubs owned by an affiliated team. The vote lost 13-7 so I was hopeful it would at least demonstrate to any clubs looking to manipulate FFP that they were not going to get away with anything along those lines. What disappoints me is to find Wolves were one of the 7 clubs to vote for this, not sure I should be surprised given the ownership structure of Grasshoppers but there you go. Surely Fosun can see the way the Saudi league teams intend to use this while owning the top 4 teams in that league and a fairly decent pool of talent?

I really dont know why I'm surprised given that Fosun clearly bought Wolves to use Gestifute to spin players for profit at our expense (which clearly didn't pan out the way they thought), but given we're far from one of the big hitters financially any more they could at least try to put Wolves success a little higher up their agenda and not make us one of the corrupt lot. Most Wolves managers seem to succeed in spite of Fosun as much as because of them, with success on the pitch not at the top of Fosun's agenda so even more kudos to GON who has this team pulling together and playing some wonderful football. Pity Fosun cant do a bit more to help him.

 

[lets all have a disco]

Told ya...

We have a current interest in grasshoppers and why would we vote for sanctions for Saudi clubs when we want that market open for normal business...

Feel free to take Jose Sa for 40m, Newcastle owners and do what you want with him....we ain't gonna vote to stop you and want your money in the same deal....

 

[Redrockwanderer]

However, did Grasshoppers get bought out by the group who owns LAFC in America? Or is it going through?

Could point towards Fosun buying a newer club?

 

[henri_camara]

However, did Grasshoppers get bought out by the group who owns LAFC in America? Or is it going through?

Could point towards Fosun buying a newer club?

Or the grasshoppers owners wanting to buy us?

 

[thommo1984]

This is all being discussed in the Saudi thread btw

 

[Werewolf of Wombourne]

From what I can gather it was a blanket temporary ban on joint ownership loans. That's not what was needed. The vote would have stopped us sending out young players on loan to Grasshoppers or whatever club FOSUN owned. This has benefitted us in the past and will continue to benefit us. The rise of Toti shows the system working well. There is no difference in that scenario with sending young players out to clubs not under joint ownership and is wholly beneficial. A ban like that would have hurt us.

What was needed was a ban on what the Saudi's look like they want to do in circumventing FFP by using the Saudi clubs to buy established and high class players and then loaning them to the clubs they own in the Premier League with a generous wage structure, so Newcastle (or whoever) get 3-4 world class players they could never have bought within FFP for next to nothing. Surely that could have been accomplished by putting a limit on first team appearances in the top 5 leagues for instance.

 

[old wittonian]

From what I can gather it was a blanket temporary ban on joint ownership loans. That's not what was needed. The vote would have stopped us sending out young players on loan to Grasshoppers or whatever club FOSUN owned. This has benefitted us in the past and will continue to benefit us. The rise of Toti shows the system working well. There is no difference in that scenario with sending young players out to clubs not under joint ownership and is wholly beneficial. A ban like that would have hurt us.

What was needed was a ban on what the Saudi's look like they want to do in circumventing FFP by using the Saudi clubs to buy established and high class players and then loaning them to the clubs they own in the Premier League with a generous wage structure, so Newcastle (or whoever) get 3-4 world class players they could never have bought within FFP for next to nothing. Surely that could have been accomplished by putting a limit on first team appearances in the top 5 leagues for instance.

I think that Grasshoppers are owned by Jenny Wang, Guo's wife, not Fosun.

 

[Monk]

Or - because it was something the FA wanted to stop happening and after the recent VAR debacles and the ridiculous fine imposed following last seasons game against Chelsea - Wolves stick 2 fingers up to them

 

[lets all have a disco]

Load of *******s anyway......trying to make a rule change half way through the season , just because the so called big teams don't like it.....**** em......

I hope Newcastle get about 6 on loan...

 

[waggys left foot]

Only Wolves not part of consortium of clubs -clearly Mendes and Getifute didn't want ban

The multi-club empires behind Premier League's eight loan-ban rebels

It was generally accepted prior to the Premier League shareholder vote on a temporary ban on incoming loan deals between clubs with the same owners that the motion would be passed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[inaglasshouse]

Clearly we must see a possible advantage in it somehow.

 

[Hophead]

Coincidence? Maybe.

China-Saudi RMB Settlement Will Insulate the Oil Trade From U.S. Sanctions

Christopher Vassallo writes about how China is taking steps to steel its trade in Saudi oil from foreign financial sanctions, just as it seeks to protect its physical trade routes – all without having to supplant the dollar globally.

asiasociety.org

 

[Eastern Wolf]

One reason Wolves voted the way they did could be because our owner has a stake in Gestifute who could stand to gain from the decision.

 

[Werewolf of Wombourne]

There are a few reasons to vote against a blanket ban. It needed to be more specific to close any loophole to get around FFP.

 

[Madmalc]

Toti came back to us mid-season. I think he was still our player at the time, but could so easily have been a Grasshoppers player.

 

[SteveBullsKnee]

One reason Wolves voted the way they did could be because our owner has a stake in Gestifute who could stand to gain from the decision.

Exactly this. Mendes/Gestifute are heavily involved in the Saudi expansion and seeing as Fosun hold a shareholding in Gestifute they wont vote against it.

I wouldn’t at all be suprised to see some of our fringe players or expensive flops (Guedes and Fabio) end up over there with us recouping a much bigger chunk than doing it in Europe.

Plus I find it amusing that clubs in the big 6 are now spouting about sporting integrity. Where was the integrity when they tried to jump ship to a super league?

 

[WolfLing]

Plus I find it amusing that clubs in the big 6 are now spouting about sporting integrity. Where was the integrity when they tried to jump ship to a super league?

Yeah, they can badge this one up as much as they want, but this is all about Saudi and Newcastle.

I'm actually surprised the PL wanted to ban these types of loans in the first place, given that it increases the chances of big names playing the the league.

Of the 'big 6', Man United, Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal voted against the proposals.

Funnily enough, they are the clubs probably closest to missing out on Europe should Newcastle sustain their progression.

It's all very cynical. All clubs have voted in a way that they feel will benefit them the most, us included. Fair enough. I'd much rather we did that than some principled vote that is actually detrimental to us.

Man United are the funniest out of that lot. If they concentrated more on fixing their club than trying to hold onto their status with their fingertips and stop others from challenging, they'd probably be a lot more successful. Only one way that club is going under the current model, and that isn't upwards. At least Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal have improved themselves on and off the field to try and challenge.

 

[SteveBullsKnee]

Yeah, they can badge this one up as much as they want, but this is all about Saudi and Newcastle.

I'm actually surprised the PL wanted to ban these types of loans in the first place, given that it increases the chances of big names playing the the league.

Of the 'big 6', Man United, Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal voted against the proposals.

Funnily enough, they are the clubs probably closest to missing out on Europe should Newcastle sustain their progression.

It's all very cynical. All clubs have voted in a way that they feel will benefit them the most, us included. Fair enough. I'd much rather we did that than some principled vote that is actually detrimental to us.

Man United are the funniest out of that lot. If they concentrated more on fixing their club than trying to hold onto their status with their fingertips and stop others from challenging, they'd probably be a lot more successful. Only one way that club is going under the current model, and that isn't upwards. At least Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal have improved themselves on and off the field to try and challenge.

Having morals and principles in football is a rare thing. Off topic but I find it hilarious that Leeds are one of the clubs contemplating suing Everton due to FFP breaches when 20 years ago under Ridsdale they did exactly the same thing apart from they spent someone else’s money, went into administration once (nearly twice) and ended up in League One!

 

[clivewolves]

One thing that I keep hearing pundits saying is that the eight clubs that voted against the ban were voting in their own interest. Of course. All 20 clubs were voting in what they believed to be in their own interest, whether they voted for or against the motion. That's the point of having a vote and using it. To vote in your own interest, as they should, otherwise, what's the point of having a voting system? I doubt the clubs that voted for the ban were doing it out of some noble cause for the benefit of football. They calculated it was in their interest. Now whether in the long term that will prove the correct decision we'll have to wait and see. Maybe there will be a new vote in the summer.

 

[Nige]

Premier League Corrupt as ****
Premier League Corrupt as ****..

 

[SA Wolf]

I just wish the club would tell us why they voted as they did. As others have said, they must see some advantage further down the line. We all like to play the speculation game, but as fans we have a right to know the direction that Fosun is taking OUR club. Fosun are just the current custodians. WE were here long before they arrived and will be here long after they've lost interest.
On the face of it, it seems an illogical vote from Wolves!

 

[Monketron]

One thing that I keep hearing pundits saying is that the eight clubs that voted against the ban were voting in their own interest. Of course. All 20 clubs were voting in what they believed to be in their own interest, whether they voted for or against the motion. That's the point of having a vote and using it. To vote in your own interest, as they should, otherwise, what's the point of having a voting system? I doubt the clubs that voted for the ban were doing it out of some noble cause for the benefit of football. They calculated it was in their interest. Now whether in the long term that will prove the correct decision we'll have to wait and see. Maybe there will be a new vote in the summer.

The vote was only ever for a temp ban just for this January. The plan was always for a more substantial rule to be put in place for the summer onwards, although the result of this vote will probably change those plans. It's worth noting that if Sheff Utd get relegated and aren't replaced with a club who would vote 'No' to the ban then they could still get this thing through in the summer meeting, they only need 1 vote to switch.

 

[Wolf316]

I just wish the club would tell us why they voted as they did. As others have said, they must see some advantage further down the line. We all like to play the speculation game, but as fans we have a right to know the direction that Fosun is taking OUR club. Fosun are just the current custodians. WE were here long before they arrived and will be here long after they've lost interest.
On the face of it, it seems an illogical vote from Wolves!

The Gestifute link I’d guess.

 

[Chisels_n_ommers]

I just wish the club would tell us why they voted as they did. As others have said, they must see some advantage further down the line. We all like to play the speculation game, but as fans we have a right to know the direction that Fosun is taking OUR club. Fosun are just the current custodians. WE were here long before they arrived and will be here long after they've lost interest.
On the face of it, it seems an illogical vote from Wolves!

So far the Middle East influence has only benefited Wolves (Nunes, Neves deals).
If we get more of the same (e.g Sa) then why vote against them and their clubs?

If we hadn't been able to do those deals this season, things could have turned out very dicey.

 

[lets all have a disco]

So far the Middle East influence has only benefited Wolves (Nunes, Neves deals).
If we get more of the same (e.g Sa) then why vote against them and their clubs?

If we hadn't been able to do those deals this season, things could have turned out very dicey.

I'm amazed people can not see this ... Newcastle loaning a player or two in January isn't a threat to us..... potentially blocking a source for future income to us is....

This is just the big 6, trying to block Newcastle....it would just be the start.......The Saudia market with Mendes and Gestifute could be just what we need in the short term to help with our current problems....

 

[SuperGran]

I'm amazed people can not see this ... Newcastle loaning a player or two in January isn't a threat to us..... potentially blocking a source for future income to us is....

This is just the big 6, trying to block Newcastle....it would just be the start.......The Saudia market with Mendes and Gestifute could be just what we need in the short term to help with our current problems....

The fact that the only two teams upset by it is Liverpool and man Utd tells you all you need to know.

 

[lets all have a disco]

The fact that the only two teams upset by it is Liverpool and man Utd tells you all you need to know.

To be honest I would vote the opposite to the big 6 in everything, regardless of the question,..

 

[bigwolf]

I just wish the club would tell us why they voted as they did. As others have said, they must see some advantage further down the line. We all like to play the speculation game, but as fans we have a right to know the direction that Fosun is taking OUR club. Fosun are just the current custodians. WE were here long before they arrived and will be here long after they've lost interest.
On the face of it, it seems an illogical vote from Wolves!

It's obvious why they voted for it.

It's better for FOSUN and Wolves. If there wasn't a benefit or felt that we'd be worse off then they would have voted against.

There will have been horse trading discussions going on behind the scenes.

Not saying it's the right thing to do but simply it's better for wolves.

Remember FOSUN are here to make money and being in bed with he Saudis wil help attain that objective. They are not here as they love Wolverhampton or for altruistic reasons. It's all about the money.

 

[Wolf316]

I'm amazed people can not see this ... Newcastle loaning a player or two in January isn't a threat to us..... potentially blocking a source for future income to us is....

This is just the big 6, trying to block Newcastle....it would just be the start.......The Saudia market with Mendes and Gestifute could be just what we need in the short term to help with our current problems....

To be fair though if Newcastle use it to get around FFP by buying players for their Saudi clubs and then loaning them to Newcastle that does need to be stopped.

 

[kidder_wolf_II]

To be fair though if Newcastle use it to get around FFP by buying players for their Saudi clubs and then loaning them to Newcastle that does need to be stopped.

Why would the Saudi clubs loan their best players when PIFs main objective is to grow the Saudi Leagues?

Also with the ridiculous wages these players are being paid there’s better value for Newcastle to loan players from other clubs in Europe.

Remember ALL clubs have to pay fair market value for players otherwise they break the rules. Newcastle are also struggling with ffp so have to be careful what they spend.

Newcastle will not loan anyone from Saudi of any value in January.

No one cared when Man City or Brentford took advantage of this rule. Personally everyone is panicking over nothing thinking Newcastle will use this to their advantage.

 

[Pagey]

Wasn't a similar loophole stopped when Watford loaned in 10 players a few years ago from Udinese?, who were also owned by the Pozzo family?

 

[SuperGran]

Wasn't a similar loophole stopped when Watford loaned in 10 players a few years ago from Udinese?, who were also owned by the Pozzo family?

No one gave a **** about Watford because they weren’t challenging the top six

 

[Wolf316]

No one gave a **** about Watford because they weren’t challenging the top six

Clubs were also still bound by FFP.

 

[SA Wolf]

So far the Middle East influence has only benefited Wolves (Nunes, Neves deals).
If we get more of the same (e.g Sa) then why vote against them and their clubs?

If we hadn't been able to do those deals this season, things could have turned out very dicey.

It wasn't a vote to ban transfers to the ME, though, but against a ban (temp) between syndicated clubs. Would have no effect on Wolves as it stands.

 

[SA Wolf]

It's obvious why they voted for it.

It's better for FOSUN and Wolves. If there wasn't a benefit or felt that we'd be worse off then they would have voted against.

There will have been horse trading discussions going on behind the scenes.

Not saying it's the right thing to do but simply it's better for wolves.

Remember FOSUN are here to make money and being in bed with he Saudis wil help attain that objective. They are not here as they love Wolverhampton or for altruistic reasons. It's all about the money.

Not to me or to other commentators that I've heard from like Roy Keane, Ian Wright, Gary Neville etc... You are speculating, but I suspect don't know for definite. I just think we should be told.

 

[lets all have a disco]

To be fair though if Newcastle use it to get around FFP by buying players for their Saudi clubs and then loaning them to Newcastle that does need to be stopped.

But you could argue it's only same as loans, loan to buy we have benefited from in the mendes carousel....

The top 6 , established ****ers don't like anybody getting one over them.....or using an advantage.....I love Man city having the Liverpool and United over.....and I hope Newcastle do...

I don't see any difference in Neves going to Newcastle in January...than Cunha coming to wolves last January.. and books for FFP being distorted as such ..it owners using connections the same ....

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

But you could argue it's only same as loans, loan to buy we have benefited from in the mendes carousel....

The top 6 , established ****ers don't like anybody getting one over them.....or using an advantage.....I love Man city having the Liverpool and United over.....and I hope Newcastle do...

I don't see any difference in Neves going to Newcastle in January...than Cunha coming to wolves last January.. and books for FFP being distorted as such ..it owners using connections the same ....

Depends on the deal though surely?

Never goes to Newcastle and they pay him £400k a week and sign him for £50 in the Summer, fair enough. Pay him £60k a week and sign him for £10m then not so much!

 

[Minimalist]

Why would the Saudi clubs loan their best players when PIFs main objective is to grow the Saudi Leagues?

Also with the ridiculous wages these players are being paid there’s better value for Newcastle to loan players from other clubs in Europe.

Remember ALL clubs have to pay fair market value for players otherwise they break the rules. Newcastle are also struggling with ffp so have to be careful what they spend.

Newcastle will not loan anyone from Saudi of any value in January.

No one cared when Man City or Brentford took advantage of this rule. Personally everyone is panicking over nothing thinking Newcastle will use this to their advantage.

If Newcastle loaned a player from Saudi, it’s not necessarily a given they would have to pay the full wage. Theoretically they could loan Neves for 18 months and contribute £100 a week to his wages.

(I think?)

 

[SteveBullsKnee]

Not to me or to other commentators that I've heard from like Roy Keane, Ian Wright, Gary Neville etc... You are speculating, but I suspect don't know for definite. I just think we should be told.

Why the hell do we have to be told? Why are fans so desperate for the club to be “open”? Would you feel better if Shi came out and said “look we’re in the pocket of Mendes and he’s making millions from the Middle East so we don’t want to upset him”

Have any other club explained how they voted and why?

 

[lets all have a disco]

Why the hell do we have to be told? Why are fans so desperate for the club to be “open”? Would you feel better if Shi came out and said “look we’re in the pocket of Mendes and he’s making millions from the Middle East so we don’t want to upset him”

Have any other club explained how they voted and why?

Should say "we can vote No , cause we want to sell the same blokes Jose Sa for 40m". ......

It might help a few , just to spell it out ...