• 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!

Summer 2022 Transfer Window

PuntsWolf said:
It is standard practice. Clubs don’t give players away for free (except Wolves) unless it’s a development player. We were getting Loan fees for Henri Camara nearly 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
I think you are both talking about different things aren't you?

There is often a loan fee.

But we had to pay a fee for not signing Trincao, they are different things aren't they?
 
Elephant Pyjamas said:
I think you are both talking about different things aren't you?

There is often a loan fee.

But we had to pay a fee for not signing Trincao, they are different things aren't they?
Click to expand...
Yep.

I've no issue with us paying up front to take a player for a year. I don't want to be paying to give him back!
 
PuntsWolf said:
Except the decision was made Jan 31st when it was already clear Trincao was rubbish…

And we already had a seperate deal for Trincao anyway so in no way needed to use Adama to facilitate that.

So to conclude, your either Scott Sellars of talking absolute nonsense.
Click to expand...
What was the agreed fee for trincao, £25m? Yeah, we ain't paying that these days without someone going out / in the opposite direction.

To me these deals we're clearly linked as soon as Adama went to Barca, trincao wouldn't have had to do much to be better than Adama. As I said, it would have been a swap or at least netted out to an effective swap.
 
Elephant Pyjamas said:
I think you are both talking about different things aren't you?

There is often a loan fee.

But we had to pay a fee for not signing Trincao, they are different things aren't they?
Click to expand...
No I don’t think we are.
Deutsch Wolf said:
Yep.

I've no issue with us paying up front to take a player for a year. I don't want to be paying to give him back!
Click to expand...
So your saying we’ve paid £5m loan fee and are then paying more to not sign him. That isn’t the case, but if you can prove to me otherwise then I will stand corrected.
 
PuntsWolf said:
No I don’t think we are.

So your saying we’ve paid £5m loan fee and are then paying more to not sign him. That isn’t the case, but if you can prove to me otherwise then I will stand corrected.
Click to expand...
Not sure about this one but that was apparently the case with the Jose deal - there was some sort of forfeit fee for not taking up the option that was in addition to the loan fee,
 
PuntsWolf said:
So your saying we’ve paid £5m loan fee and are then paying more to not sign him. That isn’t the case, but if you can prove to me otherwise then I will stand corrected.
Click to expand...
sportwitness.co.uk

Club receive €4m compensation from Wolves, to add to the €8.5m they expect to collect - Sport Witness

Towards the end of the January transfer window, Wolves secured the signing of Willian Jose from Real Sociedad on loan. The Spanish slant at the time was that the deal would almost certainly be made permanent, due to clauses in the initial loan. Jose went on to make 17 Premier League appearances...
sportwitness.co.uk sportwitness.co.uk

This was the case with Willian José and there are reports that it's similar with Trincao (the club aren't exactly going to shout it from the rooftops).

Meanwhile I very much doubt Empoli will be paying us for not signing Cutrone.
 
AndyWolves said:
What was the agreed fee for trincao, £25m? Yeah, we ain't paying that these days without someone going out / in the opposite direction.

To me these deals we're clearly linked as soon as Adama went to Barca, trincao wouldn't have had to do much to be better than Adama. As I said, it would have been a swap or at least netted out to an effective swap.
Click to expand...
If he was really good we’d have paid it. Try before you by like we have with several others. He wasn’t very good so we aren’t signing him.

Your somehow still missing the point. Whether they were linked or not is irrelevant. We didn’t need to give Adama away for free. We did
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
sportwitness.co.uk

Club receive €4m compensation from Wolves, to add to the €8.5m they expect to collect - Sport Witness

Towards the end of the January transfer window, Wolves secured the signing of Willian Jose from Real Sociedad on loan. The Spanish slant at the time was that the deal would almost certainly be made permanent, due to clauses in the initial loan. Jose went on to make 17 Premier League appearances...
sportwitness.co.uk sportwitness.co.uk

This was the case with Willian José and there are reports that it's similar with Trincao (the club aren't exactly going to shout it from the rooftops).

Meanwhile I very much doubt Empoli will be paying us for not signing Cutrone.
Click to expand...
No I think it’s just semantics. We had a pre agreed fee, we don’t pay the loan fee and the pre agreed fee.

So for Trincao - £25m agreed fee, but we pay the loan fee if we don’t sign him. We don’t pay the £5m and the £25m. The try before you buy penalty.

So for Willian Jose we paid the €4m loan fee because we didn’t do the permanent deal. Basically paid them €4m as an insurance for the try before you buy as we were weakening them.

We should have done the same for Traore but alledgedly haven’t.

We may have done it for Cutrone but a very nominal fee. Unforturnately you can’t really charge for rubbish players who you don’t want who you are hoping to just take a cut of their wages as a best case. If Empoli are paying half his 60k and 0 loan fee we will probably call that a success.
 
insidefutbol.com

Wolves Grabbing Willian Jose With No Loan Fee

Wolves are not slated to pay a loan fee to Real Sociedad for the signature of striker Willian Jose this month.
insidefutbol.com insidefutbol.com

So my understanding…No loan fee upfront as it was assumed the deal would be permanent. We backed out so have to pay. Standard practice.

We don’t know for sure that there wasn’t a loan/penalty fee in the Adama deal. Either way it would still be terrible as he’s lost £10m of value and we didn’t actually have him here either…
 
PuntsWolf said:
If he was really good we’d have paid it. Try before you by like we have with several others. He wasn’t very good so we aren’t signing him.

Your somehow still missing the point. Whether they were linked or not is irrelevant. We didn’t need to give Adama away for free. We did
Click to expand...
Isn't it just Barca trying Adama before they buy?

(It's a shit deal for us given his contract situation, fully aware of that)
 
AndyWolves said:
Isn't it just Barca trying Adama before they buy?

(It's a shit deal for us given his contract situation, fully aware of that)
Click to expand...
See my post above.

The selling club can’t agree to ‘try before you buy’ on a first team player going into his final year without assurances. You either keep him, or you sell him. Loaning him for a £10m fee would still be poor business.

So if you think it’s a shit deal given his contract situation, how can you possibly say “I honestly don't think it was that bad an approach”!?
 
PuntsWolf said:
See my post above.

The selling club can’t agree to ‘try before you buy’ on a first team player going into his final year without assurances. You either keep him, or you sell him. Loaning him for a £10m fee would still be poor business.

So if you think it’s a shit deal given his contract situation, how can you possibly say “I honestly don't think it was that bad an approach”!?
Click to expand...
Given that Traore's modus operandi is to start off unplayable and then taper off over the next dozen games, a try before you buy deal is spectacularly bad business.
 
I can't find it now but with the Rafa Mir loan Hulesca had a clause that if they tried to sign him and he went elsewhere they got a sort of 'development fee' too. Which wasn't huge and isn't standard, but I remember being impressed with the foresight of Huelsca to include.
 
PuntsWolf said:
See my post above.

The selling club can’t agree to ‘try before you buy’ on a first team player going into his final year without assurances. You either keep him, or you sell him. Loaning him for a £10m fee would still be poor business.

So if you think it’s a shit deal given his contract situation, how can you possibly say “I honestly don't think it was that bad an approach”!?
Click to expand...
Because it gave us a chance of getting something for Adama (maybe we did get a decent loan fee too?). As it stands I think Adama will walk out the front door for nothing.
 
He used to sit next to me and Johnny. Good lad Nick is.
Fun fact: I actually had his season ticket in my wallet all through lockdown. Scenes.
 
AndyWolves said:
Because it gave us a chance of getting something for Adama (maybe we did get a decent loan fee too?). As it stands I think Adama will walk out the front door for nothing.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure your if you’re just on a wind up or just can’t/don’t actually read the posts.

We already had a chance of getting something (Spurs had bid £22m). If he didn’t want to go there, and no one else gives you guaranteed money, then you have to keep him.

As I said… unless the loan fee was somehere in the region of £15m it’s bad business…

Now you can continue to waste bandwidth defending the indefensible or just say “yes it was an awful deal” (which you later said but are still trying to defend it now… so weird).
 
Don't think we can have a loan fee for Adama given the Barcelona financial situation at the time, unless it only became payable next season which I'm not sure is permitted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top