Can't believe some of the over reactions on here tonight...

[Miah Dennehy]

8 hours ago, bris red said:

Indeed. Sad little individual i would imagine in real life 

[Markman]

10 hours ago, Sweeneys Penalties said:

it's a loss against the very best side in Tier 2. That's it! We need to be more street wise... apart from that, we're going well

OMG "Tier 2" - perhaps technically correct but I still think we are in the  "Second Division" (Premiership/Championship clap trap) 

[ScottishRed]

6 hours ago, Swede said:

We've lost to three free kicks. One hit the post & the other two they scored from.

They are a really good side but then when you are able to spend the amount of money they have what do you expect.

Unless someone can enlighten me financial fair play and them just doesn't add up.

Something just isn't right.

 

There CEO said early December they don't give a xxxx about FFP. OK I am paraphrasing , but in essence that is what he said, it was along the lines of ' we are aware of it but it does not rule any decision we make'.

This says to me that they will spend more next month.

And when you consider that the League have still not punished QPR for their breach a few seasons ago who can blame them. If you break it and get promoted nothing will happen unless you get relegated to the Championsip again and even then.......

Bmuff are in exactly the same boat.

[Sweeneys Penalties]

3 minutes ago, Markman said:

OMG "Tier 2" - perhaps technically correct but I still think we are in the  "Second Division" (Premiership/Championship clap trap) 

Thats why I call it Tier 2. League 1 is Division 3.....and my old head can't take it any more

[spudski]

7 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

Well said Spud. 

The run was always going to end sometime - and to the top placed team after a gruelling set of games, it's no disgrace. 

Bad luck played its part tonight, just as good luck played its part in many of our victories.

We need to defend set pieces better. And we need to take our set pieces better.

However the interplay for Bobby's goal was such a joy to behold it almost salvages the evening for me.

How we've grown as a team. How good we are to watch when everything is firing.

Indeed RR...you are spot on as well regarding defending set pieces.

Our wall against Man Utd and again yesterday for Wolves first was dire.

No way should we be allowing a man in our wall to open up and create a space to shoot through.

If you can't stand in front of him, at least stand behind him so their is no gap.

Other than that, some delightful football still being played. Our movement for Bob's goal was sublime.

[RumRed]

9 minutes ago, spudski said:

Indeed RR...you are spot on as well regarding defending set pieces.

Our wall against Man Utd and again yesterday for Wolves first was dire.

No way should we be allowing a man in our wall to open up and create a space to shoot through.

If you can't stand in front of him, at least stand behind him so their is no gap.

Other than that, some delightful football still being played. Our movement for Bob's goal was sublime.

Who do you thinks at fault for the wall,  Steele or the outfield players? 

Even I could see it was poor before the ball was kicked, may get away with it against lesser sides but I thought it was appalling.

[spudski]

1 minute ago, RumRed said:

Who do you thinks at fault for the wall,  Steele or the outfield players? 

Even I could see it was poor before the ball was kicked, may get away with it against lesser sides but I thought it was appalling.

Both mate...Steele and the outfield players shouldn't be allowing it.

Steele got unlucky with the shot, as he would have probably saved it,  if it hadn't deflected off of Packs head.

Way too much movement in the wall for my liking...just stand there. Don't jump, as it often goes underneath, or when that close takes a deflection and misdirects the ball which confuses the keeper...which it did yesterday.

The wall against Man Utd was outstandingly bad. Some of our players actually got out of the way.

There doesn't seem to be anyone player taking control of the wall, and being dominant and vocal about it. It's all very half hearted.

 

[1960maaan]

Agree with the text if not so much the title @spudski , although I would say the only pressure they had was at 10 Vs 10. Up to FF meltdown we had around 70% and mainly in their half. They had 3 shots on target (can't remember the 3rd though) and their keeper pulled off 3 good saves. I would sy we slightly shaded over 90, but they were the only winners when it went 10 Vs 10.

 

9 hours ago, ZiderEyed said:

Cheers. Just noticed a bit of an anomaly with the amount of goals we've conceded from free kicks while LS has been in goal. 1 against the Mancs and 2 tonight.

 

The 2 from direct shots (from memory) were both keepers side. I've defended him as both (ManU and WW) took deflections and seemed to dip, but both are very close to him, and on both occasions there has been a gap in the wall. Need to look at that.

6 minutes ago, spudski said:

Indeed RR...you are spot on as well regarding defending set pieces.

Our wall against Man Utd and again yesterday for Wolves first was dire.

No way should we be allowing a man in our wall to open up and create a space to shoot through.

If you can't stand in front of him, at least stand behind him so their is no gap.

Other than that, some delightful football still being played. Our movement for Bob's goal was sublime.

Some of the movement and interplay is lovey to watch, that we have scored goals at the end of some of these moves is brilliant. What it does make me think , with (as you say ) players running on empty we may need 2 CMF just to allow us to rotate and rest injuries in the run in. The high press and good movement put immense pressure on the midfield and forward players , I'm amazed that they can still put in performances like yesterday.
If we can get a striker,, 2 MF and a RB we can really have a go. But re-enforcements are desperately needed.
Really disappointed that the Derby game is on TV and a Friday now, we would have taken a fair few there.

[RumRed]

1 minute ago, spudski said:

Both mate...Steele and the outfield players shouldn't be allowing it.

Steele got unlucky with the shot, as he would have probably saved it,  if it hadn't deflected off of Packs head.

Way too much movement in the wall for my liking...just stand there. Don't jump, as it often goes underneath, or when that close takes a deflection and misdirects the ball which confuses the keeper...which it did yesterday.

The wall against Man Utd was outstandingly bad. Some of our players actually got out of the way.

There doesn't seem to be anyone player taking control of the wall, and being dominant and vocal about it. It's all very half hearted.

 

I never understand a wall where the defenders peel away as the ball’s kicked (apart from if they’re physically dragged by the opposition)

[GrahamC]

7 hours ago, Swede said:

We've lost to three free kicks. One hit the post & the other two they scored from.

They are a really good side but then when you are able to spend the amount of money they have what do you expect.

Unless someone can enlighten me financial fair play and them just doesn't add up.

Something just isn't right.

 

They haven't "officially" spent that much this season because the majority of their summer signings are technically "on loan".

However what stinks about this is that they all apparently have the same agent (Jorge Mendes, also Cristiano Ronaldo's agent) who was also the "consultant" when the Chinese took over Wolves.

This firstly appears an obvious conflict of interests plus the calibre of many of these players leaving much bigger clubs (Monaco, Athletico Madrid) to go on loan to the English second level, is at the very least "surprising".

It may well not be illegal but it is dodgy as ****...

[Port Red]

As I understand it FFP is based upon the average over 3 seasons so if you get promoted you should get away with it due to the Premier League money etc

https://www.efl.com/news/2014/november/championship-clubs-agree-new-financial-fair-play-rules/

[1960maaan]

14 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

They haven't "officially" spent that much this season because the majority of their summer signings are technically "on loan".

haven't looked too closely but 3 recent signings;

Roderick Miranda.    £2.7m
Rúben Neves.          £15.8m
Ivan Cavaleiro.         £ 8.0m

So there's roughly £26m , the loans (5 of them) wouldn't be cheap either. Nothing will be done, QPR have a £60m fine hanging over them , lets see if anything is done to them. Won't hold my breath.

[You Do The Dziekanowski]

The difference last night was when it was 1-1 they could bring on top quality players, Premiership quality in Cavaleiro to change the game. We could only bring on players who aren’t quite championship ready in Elliason or in Taylor’s case isn’t a lone striker. 

The first time since our physio room has been fully occupied we’ve seen our resources stretched to the max. No big deal as when the players are back fit we’ll be able to be in Wolves position and change the game and lift the crowd with a sub.

[Lanterne Rouge]

41 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

They haven't "officially" spent that much this season because the majority of their summer signings are technically "on loan".

However what stinks about this is that they all apparently have the same agent (Jorge Mendes, also Cristiano Ronaldo's agent) who was also the "consultant" when the Chinese took over Wolves.

This firstly appears an obvious conflict of interests plus the calibre of many of these players leaving much bigger clubs (Monaco, Athletico Madrid) to go on loan to the English second level, is at the very least "surprising".

It may well not be illegal but it is dodgy as ****...

I was talking about this to a couple of their fans before the game. They`re obviously happy with where they are but a little bit apprehensive that there is something not quite right with it all. What they`re afraid of is that the league will grow a pair and start hitting clubs hard over it and fear they might be a good place for them to start. If past experience is anything to go by though they won`t have anything to worry about.

[Swede]

. . . .and that's just it.

I think Wolves are a really good footballing side and deserve a huge amount of credit but I really do wonder why the football authorities allow a similar situation to develope

[ScottishRed]

3 hours ago, GrahamC said:

They haven't "officially" spent that much this season because the majority of their summer signings are technically "on loan".

However what stinks about this is that they all apparently have the same agent (Jorge Mendes, also Cristiano Ronaldo's agent) who was also the "consultant" when the Chinese took over Wolves.

This firstly appears an obvious conflict of interests plus the calibre of many of these players leaving much bigger clubs (Monaco, Athletico Madrid) to go on loan to the English second level, is at the very least "surprising".

It may well not be illegal but it is dodgy as ****...

According to an article in the Sunday Times this morning they spent £41m in the summer plus deals have been agreed for Jota and Bonatini, both currently on loan, so if the article is accurate they have spent a significant amount.

Neves alone was £16m.

Mendes, whose first client as an agent ,after leaving the world of nightclub management, is the current Wolves manager. They have a wealthy owner, they pay out the cash, these players come and play in the Championship with the clear intention of playing in the EPL asap. If Wolves get promoted,, great they are there then OR if they don't get promoted the players have the opportunity to attract the attention of EPL teams.

Should the second scenario come to pass - looks highly unlikely - Wolves sell some of them to an EPL club at a profit and Mendes makes his %.

The only potential issue is FFP - and as I said earlier, that does not seem to trouble them unduly.

Cant see any conflict of interest at all. 

I also don't see how it's 'dodgy', in reality it's not that. different to what our stated strategy is buying potential, developing it and then selling at a profit.

[A wolf]

To start thank you for 2 great games this season, however you feel about the results nobody can say they’ve been dull.

 

I just thought I would answer some of the myths about Wolves spending and FFP. 

 

Yes We have spent a lot of money but we have also received a considerable amount in fees in. Our net spend for this season so far is just above £10m compared to your £8m is not massively different. Yes I understand that we will more than likely have a higher wage bill and loan fees added will increase that further but we are by no means just buying the league.

 

With FFP our owners were very shrewd when purchasing Wolves. Within the rules of FFP you can make an average loss of £13m a season over 3 years. In the years before the takeover Wolves made a profit which will enable us to increase the amount of loss available this season.

The players we’ve bought have been on long term contracts, a trend that has recently been growing. This is due to how transfer fees can be listed in the accounts. For example Neves cost around £15m on a 5 year contract which is classed as a depreciating asset so the day we buy him we have lost £15m in cash but gained £15m in assets so no loss has occurred. In 1 years time the contract has reduced by a fifth so the value of the asset has reduced by the same amount. Therefore we make a loss of £3m a year not £15m in one day. 

 

The reason our our board have said we are not worried about FFP is because we have absolutely no reason to worry about it.

All the best for the rest of the season and enjoy it while it’s good I’ve seen enough bad ones to make the most of it.