• 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

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...
.

On the deal.

1. We already knew trincao wasn’t great, so if we were giving them traore with the intention of just swapping them, we were effectively doing a like for like swap on ability or even a downgrade, however likely on higher wages

2. We could’ve got 20m from spurs. I wouldn’t pay 20m for trincao so again, looking at it that way it’s pretty poor

3. We had already paid 6m loan fee for trincao. To my knowledge Barca didn’t pay one for Adama. So we would be valuing trincao as 6m more than Adama if it was a swap, unless that fee was refundable (unlikely)

I would’ve rather we got the 20m for Adama, or kept him till end of season, not this weird potential swap deal. Say what you want about Adama, and yea, I am in the camp he gets a lot of flack, but we’ve looked poorer IMO without him around
 
PuntsWolf said:
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).
Click to expand...
Why do you have to keep him if you know he's going to not sign a contract and walk out the door for nothing?

There was a chance trincao becomes half decent and we want to buy him, we can then use Adama for leverage on the price. There was also a chance he smashes it at Barca (which he did in the first few games).

The alternative is Adama spends the whole season doing nothing here and leaves for nothing anyway.

I'm not saying it was a good deal, I'm saying my view is that it was the best chance of getting something for Adama. Certainly better than having him here and definitely leaving for nothing.
 
AndyWolves said:
Why do you have to keep him if you know he's going to not sign a contract and walk out the door for nothing?

There was a chance trincao becomes half decent and we want to buy him, we can then use Adama for leverage on the price. There was also a chance he smashes it at Barca (which he did in the first few games).

The alternative is Adama spends the whole season doing nothing here and leaves for nothing anyway.

I'm not saying it was a good deal, I'm saying my view is that it was the best chance of getting something for Adama. Certainly better than having him here and definitely leaving for nothing.
Click to expand...
You know he's got another year don't you?
 
AndyWolves said:
You know he's got another 6 months before he can start negotiating with foreign clubs don't you?
Click to expand...
Yeah, but loaning out a player with no obligation to buy, and we don't even know if we got a loan fee, or how much of his wages Barca are contributing, thus weakening our squad for no reason is not something you do because a year later he might sign a pre-contract with someone else.

If this were January 2023 then you may have a point.

I don't even particularly like Adama, we just did what he wanted like he was a Make A Wish kid, which is ridiculous. We've absolutely lost out and gained nothing, if the deal had been reported as it actually is rather than "Barcelona get him for now but are paying way more than Spurs were offering in the summer, and it's nailed on", then everyone would have slated it.

Can I borrow your car this weekend? I can't afford to give you anything now but I promise next Monday I'll buy it off you for way above market value. Or I'll hand it back to you with a few extra dents and 2,000 extra miles on the clock, with an empty fuel tank and knackered brake pads.
 
Tony Towner said:
It was 12 when we loaned him and knocked back circa £20m from Spurs
Click to expand...
Clearly, but what's your point here? That because the spurs deal didn't happen, for whatever reason, we shouldn't try anything else?
 
My memory of it is this:

THFC: "We'd like to buy Adama off you"
WWFC: "Ok, the price is £20m. Reasonable enough we think"
THFC: "How about £12m?"
WWFC: "Er, no"
THFC: "£12m?"
WWFC: "Sorry, is there a problem with the line?"
THFC: "Ok, £15m. No more"
WWFC: "Well we aren't going to do a deal, are we. If you find the money behind the sofa then you know where we are"

All fine.

At what point after that do you decide "well, I guess we'd better loan him to Barcelona for free"? That isn't a good move. We didn't need to do that.
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
Yeah, but loaning out a player with no obligation to buy, and we don't even know if we got a loan fee, or how much of his wages Barca are contributing, thus weakening our squad for no reason is not something you do because a year later he might sign a pre-contract with someone else.

If this were January 2023 then you may have a point.

I don't even particularly like Adama, we just did what he wanted like he was a Make A Wish kid, which is ridiculous. We've absolutely lost out and gained nothing, if the deal had been reported as it actually is rather than "Barcelona get him for now but are paying way more than Spurs were offering in the summer, and it's nailed on", then everyone would have slated it.

Can I borrow your car this weekend? I can't afford to give you anything now but I promise next Monday I'll buy it off you for way above market value. Or I'll hand it back to you with a few extra dents and 2,000 extra miles on the clock, with an empty fuel tank and knackered brake pads.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's optimal, I'm saying it gave us potential options but unfortunately

a) trincao was shit
b) Barca stopped playing Adama (he did start really well to be fair)

Nothing would happen in Jan 2023 because he's out the door for free 6 months later anyway.

To be frank, not having every thread descend into an Adama critique has been more than worth it.
 
AndyWolves said:
Nothing would happen in Jan 2023 because he's out the door for free 6 months later anyway.
Click to expand...
Except there's a direct parallel here, Newcastle offered to give Man Utd money to loan Lingard for the rest of the season in January when he was always obviously leaving this summer for free and was hardly playing at all.

As Man Utd are arguably even more stupid than we are, they said no.

We had an asking price for Adama in January, if no-one met it then we were better off just keeping him. Wasn't like he wasn't trying or anything like that (he frequently wasn't very good, but that's just Adama).
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
Except there's a direct parallel here, Newcastle offered to give Man Utd money to loan Lingard for the rest of the season in January when he was always obviously leaving this summer for free and was hardly playing at all.

As Man Utd are arguably even more stupid than we are, they said no.

We had an asking price for Adama in January, if no-one met it then we were better off just keeping him. Wasn't like he wasn't trying or anything like that (he frequently wasn't very good, but that's just Adama).
Click to expand...

How is what Newcastle did relevant to us & barca?

It's a trade off between keeping him here and Adama doing Adama things and not extending his contract, or letting him to Barca and potentially a) using him as leverage for Trincao or b) him doing the business in a more attacking team.

Keeping him, to me anyway, seems like it ends with Adama walking for free. Adama going to Barca, whilst not ideal, at least kept some options open.
 
Why would we want to use him as leverage for Trincao, who had already been here for half a season and had 0 goals and 0 assists in the league? We knew he wasn't very likely to be worth keeping.

I'm bemused here. What options did we open up by letting our player leave for a few months FOR FREE rather than him staying here, and he'd still be our player in June anyway?

If I fancy a rib eye steak but I can't afford it until payday, I don't get to have the butcher hand me one and I'll pay him later (assuming I just never ever go back to his shop).
 
AndyWolves said:
Clearly, but what's your point here? That because the spurs deal didn't happen, for whatever reason, we shouldn't try anything else?
Click to expand...
As Punts says, I'm not sure what you don't get. These are the facts:

We rejected an offer from Spurs of £15m with the general press view being they'd pay up to £20m. Unknown if Adama would have gone there as Conte wanted to use him as a wing back

He went on loan to Barcelona for 6 months with no guarantees. They played him for the first month or so, but little since and now don't want him

Any link to a deal with Trincao is done in bad faith as we already knew at the time he was shite and probably wouldn't want him and certainly not at £25m

Sellars went on record as saying it was a great deal for all parties

At the point we moved him on he was still in our first 14, starting some weeks, sub others. He wasn't replaced so his departure and gamble weakened the squad

Since then - and this is hindsight, he would have started most games due to injuries to Hwang, Podence and Neto. It's fair to suggest there's a couple of points or so out there he could have got us

He's now coming back with 6 months less on his contract and his value less than it was when we rejected the Spurs deal and no knowledge of a loan fee, but it would appear unlikely.

The structure of the deal given his contract situation is very unusual. Not difficult to.see why. It's not the same as a Cutrone who is a bad purchase who nobody is going to buy. Traore had value 6 months later it's less and that's damaged us on and off the pitch
 
The result of the gamble has failed, that I agree with.

I can see why they tried it though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top