The Summer 2025 Transfer Window Thread

[Sniffer]

Ffs. It ls like the Trump thread but with a different poster.

People are connected to the inner echelons of the club on here. Twice I’ve been given info from a poster on here that a manager had gone, days in advance of an announcement. Twice it was correct.
I guess he was talking to a bulllshiter who got lucky with info that the bookmakers would have loved to have had?

 

[Squeak]

.
You know fireside chats are an essential part of the investment cycle. They take place and become common knowledge in the sector for deals much bigger than Wolves. If you work or have friends in PE you’ll know this.

Anyway, it’s an investment company, what else do you think they are doing? Just having a nice time?

Next you'll be telling me that Jeff will be having a pint with the fans. DW can't wait...

 

[Tony Towner]

Ffs. It ls like the Trump thread but with a different poster.

People are connected to the inner echelons of the club on here. Twice I’ve been given info from a poster on here that a manager had gone, days in advance of an announcement. Twice it was correct.
I guess he was talking to a bulllshiter who got lucky with info that the bookmakers would have loved to have had?

Walter's gotta Walter

 

[Squeak]

Those commitments aren't Fosun commitments they are club ones. They aren't underwriting anything

Commitments by the club are given by the owners.

 

[Squeak]

Walter's gotta Walter

Oh we're back to that are we? Someone has a different viewpoint and you decide your only argument is to play the cunt.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Yes, I get that and get the huge mistakes they made to disenfranchise an awful lot of fans like you. Don't you think it taints your view sometimes?

In a similar way to the Birmingham Six possibly having a low opinion of West Midlands Police, I suppose.

 

[Deano]

The ground complicates it. It's effectively worth £0 no matter how much work you do on it (and we need work doing on it at some point)

Does this make that much of a difference? There's still a long term lease on the land so we can still develop on it can't we? Other clubs like West Ham and Man City have been sold whilst in stadiums that are leased themselves let alone the land it sits on. I get they're in big cities so a more attractive proposition anyway but I'm not sure if it would be a deal breaker.

 

[Squeak]

Ffs. It ls like the Trump thread but with a different poster.

People are connected to the inner echelons of the club on here. Twice I’ve been given info from a poster on here that a manager had gone, days in advance of an announcement. Twice it was correct.
I guess he was talking to a bulllshiter who got lucky with info that the bookmakers would have loved to have had?

Huge difference between what goes on with a manager being fired when its inevitable anyway and the club actually being for sale.

 

[basher]

The ground complicates it. It's effectively worth £0 no matter how much work you do on it (and we need work doing on it at some point)

I was talking about this after the Spurs game in the pub with some mates.

At the time in 1986 you can see why the decision was made re the ground when the rescue plan was put together and safeguarding the club.

But the football landscape has changed so dramatically since then so is it something that holds the club back?

I don't like the thought of moving from Molineux as it's where the greats have played and how can you say you saw them play there when they've moved the ground to an out of town retail park... you can't can you.

Is it time to revisit that covenant, or whatever you want to call it, and return the outright ownership back to the owners of the club?

I don't know the answer? But I can't help but think at times that it's becoming a bit of a millstone round the clubs neck...

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Does this make that much of a difference? There's still a long term lease on the land so we can still develop on it can't we? Other clubs like West Ham and Man City have been sold whilst in stadiums that are leased themselves let alone the land it sits on. I get they're in big cities so a more attractive proposition anyway but I'm not sure if it would be a deal breaker.

I mean they both got given a free stadium, which probably won't happen with us...

It doesn't make it impossible, it makes us less attractive for sure.

 

[Squeak]

Does this make that much of a difference? There's still a long term lease on the land so we can still develop on it can't we? Other clubs like West Ham and Man City have been sold whilst in stadiums that are leased themselves let alone the land it sits on. I get they're in big cities so a more attractive proposition anyway but I'm not sure if it would be a deal breaker.

Yes, IMO, it makes a huge difference to the value of the club. You might own the stadium buildings but if you don't own the land it is built on, then it hugely devalues it...even if the lease is a very long term one.

 

[Squeak]

I was talking about this after the Spurs game in the pub with some mates.

At the time in 1986 you can see why the decision was made re the ground when the rescue plan was put together and safeguarding the club.

But the football landscape has changed so dramatically since then so is it something that holds the club back?

I don't like the thought of moving from Molineux as it's where the greats have played and how can you say you saw them play there when they've moved the ground to an out of town retail park... you can't can you.

Is it time to revisit that covenant, or whatever you want to call it, and return the outright ownership back to the owners of the club?

I don't know the answer? But I can't help but think at times that it's becoming a bit of a millstone round the clubs neck...

Possibly but as we learned under the Bhattis that some owners simply don't have the footballing interests of the whole City of Wolverhampton at heart. This is one possible solution to safeguarding that position and to ensure we don't get in that position again. Of course, that then depends on who gets elected to serve.

 

[Tony Towner]

I was talking about this after the Spurs game in the pub with some mates.

At the time in 1986 you can see why the decision was made re the ground when the rescue plan was put together and safeguarding the club.

But the football landscape has changed so dramatically since then so is it something that holds the club back?

I don't like the thought of moving from Molineux as it's where the greats have played and how can you say you saw them play there when they've moved the ground to an out of town retail park... you can't can you.

Is it time to revisit that covenant, or whatever you want to call it, and return the outright ownership back to the owners of the club?

I don't know the answer? But I can't help but think at times that it's becoming a bit of a millstone round the clubs neck...

I'd prefer it stays in place as we don't know what's around the corner. The Bhatti's were well thought of for a year or so. I think it would play a part in being a barrier to a sale potentially, but it'll also be priced into the cost. I don't think it makes any difference to Fosun's plans, they still wouldn't fund a new stadium even if they could sell the ground, it'd still be a significant investment. Maybe if it could have happened when they were still interested

 

[Mel Evo]

Next you'll be telling me that Jeff will be having a pint with the fans. DW can't wait...

Not sure the fans are paying the target price.

Anyway, my posting record suggests that ‘next I’ll be telling you’ about a hopeless ex wolf being hopeless in Spain. Much less exciting.

 

[Kenny]

Jeff was having pints with the fans before it was Vitor cool

 

[MARKakaJIM]

The land situation shouldn't be a concern to anyone for generations. If you want to invest on the current site there are options to do so and you know that asset is safe for hundreds of years so it's still going to be there for the next buyer and the one after them and so far for however many iterations. If you were looking to move then the likely value of a plot of land in a city which sees relatively little development as it is probably doesn't do a great deal to offset the costs of a completely brand new stadium elsewhere.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

The land situation shouldn't be a concern to anyone for generations. If you want to invest on the current site there are options to do so and you know that asset is safe for hundreds of years so it's still going to be there for the next buyer and the one after them and so far for however many iterations. If you were looking to move then the likely value of a plot of land in a city which sees relatively little development as it is probably doesn't do a great deal to offset the costs of a completely brand new stadium elsewhere.

To their credit, City's old owners gave Maine Road to the council (being as they were getting a new ground for free).

But there's nearly 500 homes on that site now, the money that generates isn't chickenfeed. Even more so now than in 2004.

Having lived in Moss Side pre-2004 I can tell you it wasn't that desirable

But as I say, the other fly in the ointment with the ground is that if you buy Wolves now, you have to build a new stand soon, which won't come cheap and won't necessarily generate money back very quickly.

 

[Squeak]

The land situation shouldn't be a concern to anyone for generations. If you want to invest on the current site there are options to do so and you know that asset is safe for hundreds of years so it's still going to be there for the next buyer and the one after them and so far for however many iterations. If you were looking to move then the likely value of a plot of land in a city which sees relatively little development as it is probably doesn't do a great deal to offset the costs of a completely brand new stadium elsewhere.

It will always be a concern for any potential buyer because they want a tangible asset that they can potentially leverage in some way. If any business owns its land and buildings then it is far more valuable than someone merely renting space for a period of time. Further, if you are occupying space as a tenant, then you are always open to the whims of the landlord and leases can always be changed in time. I'm not suggesting that the council will stick it to Wolves by any means but as a potential investor or purchaser of WWFC, it would be a consideration in your mind. It then becomes a matter of how you value it.

 

[Squeak]

But as I say, the other fly in the ointment with the ground is that if you buy Wolves now, you have to build a new stand soon, which won't come cheap and won't necessarily generate money back very quickly.

Good point. And who really wants to put that kind of money into a building on rented land? Normally, the landlord would build it and then rent it out but that's not happening here and as such it essentially becomes a liability to any investor or purchaser. Sure, that can be written off over time but if you don't own the land to build said stand, then you can't leverage it and that means you need deep pockets or a very friendly lender who thinks their risk is safe in operating this way.

 

[Tony Towner]

I'm not suggesting that the council will stick it to Wolves by any means but as a potential investor or purchaser of WWFC, it would be a consideration in your mind. It then becomes a matter of how you value it.

We have just shy of 1000 years left on the lease, having it 'stuck' isn't a consideration. Not being able to sell it is.