• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

General Wolves News

O'Neil yes, not Pereira, he'll be in the set ending June 26. If you look at the yoy comparisons, we are pay a manager off in YE 21,23&24 too though. All assuming they account for them as wages rather than one off charges and that it's a lump sum rather than just staying on the payroll. Sniffer will know better than me
You’d need someone at a higher level than me to answer categorically.
I’d say there is a case to be made to account for it 2 ways, both as wages. Account for the full liability in the year that they are sacked on the basis that they don’t get another job in the contract period, whilst paying them each month for cash flow purposes. This would be followed by an adjustment if a club as mad as Strasbourg(?) take him off your hands. Or you could just keep accounting for the wages as and when you pay them until either the contract ends or they get another job.
 
Last edited:
We spunked £26m on agent fees in the last 2 windows most of which won't be appearing in the accounts released yesterday. We did a lot of business, mainly bad, so I suppose it's to be expected, but galling when you see the figure.
Were just a funnel for getting PL TV money into gestifute
 
Yeah... the agents fees are disgusting.

We're something like 6/7 highest spenders over that period.

I'd be very interested to see how much of that £26 mil went to Mendes, either directly or via proxy.
 
No problem giving him £26m if he we are getting a Neves, Jota etc every window.

We are barely getting a Marlon Harewood out of him at the moment.
 
I can live with the giving him money for his players element as long as they aren't just ridiculous overpayments like Lopez. It's the paying him/his underlings to negotiate for players in and out of the club who he has nothing to do with, that we could employ competent staff at a fraction of the price to do that offends.
 
Yes, it's a choice not to, or at least was under Shi I. Going for overpromoted yes men without the knowledge or experience to do the job, but understanding they were well paid for going along with it.
 
Back
Top