Alex Scott - £25m to Bournemouth- Confirmed

[Lrrr]

7 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

It would have to be totally guaranteed to even stop the laughter for me.

Imagine Wolves went down? We would have a player that has experienced the Prem, with only 1 year left on his contract so Wolves wriggle out of the £25M fee and bid £6 or 7M as he is OOC in 12 months.

I wouldn't even consider this unless Scotty has signed a new longer deal with us.

It would be financial suicide IMHO.

The fee would be set when the loan would begin, so regardless of what Wolves did next season it would be the fee agreed now and no changing that, the point was if say the deal were originally to be 20+5m then we could ask for say 22.5+2.5 for deferring a year, just the permanent move would happen next summer rather than this, as for the reason stated Wolves being in a better place with cash next summer potentially so its as big a deal for them then as it would be this summer.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Lrrr

[TheReds]

Wolves are facing a very challenging summer and head coach Julen Lopetegui’s future has been plunged into doubt as the club move to balance the books.

Lopetegui is frustrated after he was informed that the club’s transfer budget would be severely restricted ahead of his first full season in the Premier League.

Wolves have raised almost £90 million in player sales since the end of last season but are unable to spend at all unless further departures are made.

It has raised huge concerns among supporters, with many of them fearing a relegation battle under an ambitious manager whose hands are tied behind his back.

Here, Telegraph Sport looks at the key issues at Molineux.

Advertisement

How bad are Wolves’ finances?

There is no point in concealing the fact that Wolves have got themselves into a mess. After spending huge amounts of money in the past four transfer windows (including £175 million last season), it has now caught up with them. Too many poor signings have been made, such as Goncalo Guedes and Fabio Silva, while other big buys including Matheus Nunes and Matheus Cunha have struggled to consistently impress.

Matheus Cunha is one of several players who have struggled to impress at Wolves CREDIT: Getty Images/Jack Thomas

The problems have arisen as Wolves are now in the third financial year of a three-year cycle to satisfy the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules (previously known as financial fair play).

In the first year of that cycle, Wolves announced losses of £45 million in February: estimated losses for the second year are between £60-70 million so the total amount will be over £115 million, which exceeds the permitted £105 million allowed by the Premier League.

That places huge pressure on Wolves to make a profit over the next 12 months, with the accounting year starting in June.

Will more players have to be sold until Wolves can make any new signings?

It is inevitable that further sales are needed, despite the exits of captain Ruben Neves, Nathan Collins, Conor Coady, Raúl Jiménez and Ryan Giles.

Daniel Podence and Jonny Castro Otto appear the most likely contenders to leave next, though both players are unlikely to fetch much above £10 million.

Advertisement

 

 

Advertisement : 30 sec

Lopetegui’s No 1 target this summer is Bristol City’s Alex Scott, although the club failed with a second offer of £20 million plus add-ons this month. Negotiations between the two clubs were amicable and professional, and there was even a sense at Wolves that a deal could be done – until now.

At the moment, that move is on ice until Wolves can clear more players and wages off the books. The same applies to the club’s bid to sign West Ham United’s Aaron Cresswell.

Are the Wolves owners still committed and should supporters be worried about the future?

Wolves insist the club are not for sale and Fosun, the Chinese conglomerate that owns them, remains fully committed. This year alone it has invested £80 million to assist cash-flow and basically keep the club running.

Quite simply, Wolves have applied the brakes in order to try to avoid breaching financial regulations. Manchester City and Everton were both charged by the Premier League last season and that has struck fear into boardrooms up and down the country.

There is uncertainty over what punishment either club could receive if found guilty, so Wolves are adopting a “worst-case scenario” stance of serious sanctions including points deductions.

It means that Wolves are perhaps risking their short-term future, but they want to run the club properly and within the rules. Leicester City took similar action last summer and it ultimately ended in relegation, so that is the fear among many Wolves supporters.

Is Julen Lopetegui going to walk?

Julen Lopetegui does not believe he has the squad to compete in the Premier League CREDIT: Getty Images/Jack Thomas

He is not happy, and clearly does not believe the current squad is good enough for the Premier League. This is an awkward moment where Wolves have possibly the most decorated manager in their history but are unable to back him properly.

Lopetegui conducted another interview this week in which he laid bare his frustrations. He insisted the club had moved on to their plan B, but cannot manage that now either.

After leading the club to safety last season – one of the most underrated achievements of the campaign – he was expecting to further stamp his imprint on the squad this summer.

Communication has been a big problem at the club over these past few months, from ownership to the financial and football department. Perhaps the financial problems have not been explained adequately enough to key personnel.

While Lopetegui is unquestionably right to be annoyed, it has to be pointed out that he does have previous. At his former clubs there have often been clashes with employers. At Sevilla he had to accept a strict economic policy and wage structure. The best managers are usually difficult and challenging to work with, and this is perhaps another example. Wolves do not expect him to walk away and want to work together to come through this mini-crisis.

It also has to be made clear that the Wolves squad is a very decent one at this level, particularly for the starting XI.

Nunes, Max Kilman (who is expected to reject Napoli and stay), Mario Lemina, Craig Dawson and Joao Gomes would be starters in most Premier League teams.

Maybe the situation is not as bad as Lopetegui fears, though it is the lack of strength in depth that is his main concern.

 

Edited July 27, 2023 by TheReds

[Ska Junkie]

1 minute ago, Lrrr said:

The fee would be set when the loan would begin, so regardless of what Wolves did next season it would be the fee agreed now and no changing that, just the permanent move would happen next summer rather than this, as for the reason stated Wolves being in a better place with cash next summer potentially so its as big a deal for them then as it would be this summer.

Meanwhile, we don't get the Scott money, to possibly reinvest, for 12 months and are left weaker?

I just don't see why City would even entertain such a deal.

[Lrrr]

Just now, Ska Junkie said:

Meanwhile, we don't get the Scott money, to possibly reinvest, for 12 months and are left weaker?

I just don't see why City would even entertain such a deal.

The point was if we're happy with our squad now, if Knight is due to be Scott's replacement. We could essentially stretch the Scott money for a further season of boosting budgets and helping FFP. We wouldn't have to worry about our planning for 24/25 either as we knew it was coming 

[Cov 77]

5 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

Meanwhile, we don't get the Scott money, to possibly reinvest, for 12 months and are left weaker?

I just don't see why City would even entertain such a deal.

They won’t 

[Ska Junkie]

4 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

The point was if we're happy with our squad now, if Knight is due to be Scott's replacement. We could essentially stretch the Scott money for a further season of boosting budgets and helping FFP. We wouldn't have to worry about our planning for 24/25 either as we knew it was coming 

Get him to sign a new deal, with obvious caveats, then possibly but I still feel we lose out, so would say 'no'.

In that instance, why not keep him here for 12 months and let Wolves come back next year when they've sorted themselves out? We benefit from another year of Scott and would still get our £25M, if Scott signed a new deal.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Ska Junkie

[Mr Popodopolous]

For balance, should point out that some Wolves fans are calling BS on FFP problems claims across varied forums although it varies. Some seem to think journos are just parroting the club line, however I looked and you can extrapolate to some extent from added amortisation last season, the post season events Profit on Disposal of Players and TV money in 2021-22 to 2022-23 gap.

I'd be surprised if the media reports are far wrong.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Lrrr]

Just now, Ska Junkie said:

Get him to sign a new deal, with obvious caveats, then possibly but I still feel we lose out.

In that instance, why not keep him here for 12 months and let Wolves come back next year when they've sorted themselves out? We benefit from another year of Scott and would still get our £25M, if Scott signed a new deal.

Why would you get him to sign a new deal if Wolves were obligated to pay us £25m for him next summer? The deal would already be agreed just the permanent transfer would happen next summer with it being a loan up to that point, neither party could stop that. The situation is just a case of delaying the permanent deal by 12 months, its also not an uncommon type of deal. 

As for the second sentence, because you need the player to sign a new deal, as much as Alex is a decent lad it would be silly for him to sign a new deal at City, he has his sights set on playing at the highest level possible and signing a new deal with City potentially prolongs his wait to be able to do so if no club came in for him because City held out for a big price. Either Alex leaves for big money this summer or City face having to accept a reduced deal for him in January or next summer. 

[chinapig]

12 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

The point was if we're happy with our squad now, if Knight is due to be Scott's replacement. We could essentially stretch the Scott money for a further season of boosting budgets and helping FFP. We wouldn't have to worry about our planning for 24/25 either as we knew it was coming 

Nigel said explicitly that Knight is not Scott's replacement though.

[Ska Junkie]

8 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Why would you get him to sign a new deal if Wolves were obligated to pay us £25m for him next summer? The deal would already be agreed just the permanent transfer would happen next summer with it being a loan up to that point, neither party could stop that. The situation is just a case of delaying the permanent deal by 12 months, its also not an uncommon type of deal. 

As for the second sentence, because you need the player to sign a new deal, as much as Alex is a decent lad it would be silly for him to sign a new deal at City, he has his sights set on playing at the highest level possible and signing a new deal with City potentially prolongs his wait to be able to do so if no club came in for him because City held out for a big price. Either Alex leaves for big money this summer or City face having to accept a reduced deal for him in January or next summer. 

I see your point, I really do but I only see City weakened this season, which isn't acceptable as far as I see it, unless a very big loan fee is applied.

As for 'obligated', remember our neighbours 'watertight deal'?

Yes, in 12 months we would / may get the money but there are too many variables. Will the Wolves Manager still be there, will they still want Scott, will they even stay up?

Long term benefit for us I accept but it hardly shouts 'ambition' from City.

Totally understandable view about the chances of Scott signing a new deal here but, hypothetical I admit, we say 'no' to this without it.

I'm  just protecting our club and don't care what happens to Wolves.

Still saying  

Edited July 27, 2023 by Ska Junkie

[Davefevs]

30 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

The fee would be set when the loan would begin, so regardless of what Wolves did next season it would be the fee agreed now and no changing that, the point was if say the deal were originally to be 20+5m then we could ask for say 22.5+2.5 for deferring a year, just the permanent move would happen next summer rather than this, as for the reason stated Wolves being in a better place with cash next summer potentially so its as big a deal for them then as it would be this summer.

As above the theory is fine…

From an FFP point of view it makes no difference to either club, both clubs book the fee now.  Wolves amortise it over the loan and perm years added together.

From a Cashflow point of view it’s far too one-sided in Wolves’s favour.  I think we’d keep him if this was the deal being presented.

[Tim Monaghan]

10 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

Completely agree with this.

Source?

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

As above the theory is fine…

From an FFP point of view it makes no difference to either club, both clubs book the fee now.  Wolves amortise it over the loan and perm years added together.

From a Cashflow point of view it’s far too one-sided in Wolves’s favour.  I think we’d keep him if this was the deal being presented.

Is that certain Dave, would we book the Profit now if it was a loan with obligation? Or is this area flexible between clubs ie clubs can arrange it to suit.

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Is that certain Dave, would we book the Profit now if it was a loan with obligation? Or is this area flexible between clubs ie clubs can arrange it to suit.

Yes, it is correct, I shared the PWC doc on the previous page.  Obligation (as specified by @Lrrr), not conditional obligation as per Harry Wilson loan.

It’s not flexible at all.

In effect / it’s simplest, it’s a transfer now, but giving a year’s credit.

[IAmNick]

1 hour ago, Red DNA said:

Behind a pay wall

For people who don't know, this site is great for removing a lot of paywalls: https://12ft.io/

"Show me a 10ft paywall, and I'll show you a 12ft ladder."

You just paste the link in there, and it'll show you the real article. It's not perfect, but it's decent.

Edited July 27, 2023 by IAmNick

[Hxj]

5 hours ago, Lrrr said:

Some may joke but just by theory could be something in it, wolves offer a loan with an obligation to buy next summer when they’re financially stronger,

A loan with an obligation to buy has the same accounting treatment as an outright purchase - so it won't help Wolves.

[downendcity]

10 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Could follow this thinking/format for the match thread as well - a single post: We lost 2 - 1, see you next week all.

Why bother with a forum at all!

Big Tone's condensed version.

Bu99er!

[astrondrew]

11 hours ago, chinapig said:

Nigel said explicitly that Knight is not Scott's replacement though.

It's hardly sensible management of players or fan expectations to say someone is going to be.a like for like to replacement...even if it were likely that we could get such a replacement for someone like Scott.

Knight certainly forms part of the team if Scott stays and is even more important in that team if Scott goes.

Edited July 28, 2023 by astrondrew

[SecretSam]

14 hours ago, phantom said:

I could have sworn we played twice this midweek alone? 

Touché 

[SecretSam]

12 hours ago, chinapig said:

Nigel said explicitly that Knight is not Scott's replacement though.

Do we need a "replacement" for Scott? Serious question - he's an unusual talent, so a like-for-like replacement would be tough. We need to replace his output, should he leave, but that may not be one player. It might be achieved through style of play?

Just a thought.

[ciderwithtommy]

If Scott goes, which right now does feel unlikely (that feels odd to say), I think you will see weimann central with the long term project of mehmeti playing in the pocket. If we get big money, a standout CB and GK would be the best use of money in my opinion, and it would be ruthless to Max and may be Zak, but maybe that’s what we need to get to the promised land.

[Monkeh]

2 hours ago, SecretSam said:

Do we need a "replacement" for Scott? Serious question - he's an unusual talent, so a like-for-like replacement would be tough. We need to replace his output, should he leave, but that may not be one player. It might be achieved through style of play?

Just a thought.

Defensively yes, offensively no

[BetterRedthanBlue]

18 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

This is the tweet:

 

Even Wolves fans giving him pelters for it. The reason it’s an “exclusive” is it appears to be total, unadulterated, bollocks

I'll take Cundle and Giles on loan and I'll accept the bid with the condition Wolves have to buy him if he plays 1 minute for them.

[Midred]

If Wolves were to be in trouble next year and couldn't/wouldn't come up with the  deferred payment would any agreement become null and void or would lawyers become involved?

[Jose]

11 minutes ago, BetterRedthanBlue said:

I'll take Cundle and Giles on loan and I'll accept the bid with the condition Wolves have to buy him if he plays 1 minute for them.

Giles having medical at Luton yesterday. Would not surprise me if Cundle was part of any deal. 

[Sleepy1968]

13 minutes ago, Midred said:

If Wolves were to be in trouble next year and couldn't/wouldn't come up with the  deferred payment would any agreement become null and void or would lawyers become involved?

This is something that's not going to happen, so dont worry. But any contract should (and we'll repeat that, should) be robust enough that it is clear what happens. However the more complicated its made, the more likely unintentional loopholes, different interpretations, etc, get made ...

[Hxj]

25 minutes ago, Midred said:

If Wolves were to be in trouble next year and couldn't/wouldn't come up with the  deferred payment would any agreement become null and void or would lawyers become involved?

That would depend upon the conditions.

Just can't see it happening on this basis for obvious commercial reasons.  What if Scott has a serious injury?  All too complicated.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I just don't see the upside for us in such a scenario. I understand the underlying principle behind it, I get how it can be mutually beneficial but don't see why it would be for us in this instance.

Edited July 28, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[cotswoldred2]

137 pages of knowing nothing...zero, zilch, and yet some are still queing up to add to the knowing nothing thread.

[slartibartfast]

2 minutes ago, cotswoldred2 said:

137 pages of knowing nothing...zero, zilch, and yet some are still queing up to add to the knowing nothing thread.

It's a good job you and I aren't !