The Summer 2025 Transfer Window Thread

[leedswolf]

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.

Fulham and Brighton also lease the land their stadia are sited on IIRC. Fulham recently redeveloped their Riverside Stand.

 

[Squeak]

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.

I've seen watertight leases being re-written and renegotiated. I haven't seen the one WWFC has but I would suggest that it is balanced in our favour and if the wrong people get elected, things could start to evolve. All hypothetical though as we were talking about Fosun having the club up for sale now. The lease is of very little value in that event IMO.

 

[Celtiña]

Cunha is a good player, but he play only for he.

65 millon is a god sell. Its a good sell to buy 2 good players.

About Fabio Silva, don't sell it for less 20 millons. Have clubs interested on he. Sevilla, Atletico and R. Sociedad and more others.

Espanhol have good players:
Joan Garcia (GK) he is Best Gk of Spain but too expensive, but he top.

Omar El Hilali (for Semedo)

Javi Puado (10 goals and 3 assist Left Ofensiva Wing, like Cunha)

 

[Celtiña]

Rayo Vallecano:

Ratiu (position of semedo)

 

[MARKakaJIM]

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.

The proceeds of 500 homes would never have been City's though would it, they'd get a one off price of the land to some developer and that would be their lot. Compare to the cost of Everton's new stadium for example and you're a long long way from breaking even still.

If someone really wanted to move the club and build a brand new stadium on another plot then having the original site to sell is a nice sweetener rather than a financial must have.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Oh yeah, you're never funding it that way.

But it's £0 vs some pounds.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

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.

If you were looking at a house with essentially a millennium long lease with zero ground rent then you're essentially buying a freehold. You'd have best part of 10 generations of your family to get though before the leasehold situation was even on anyone's radar.

If it was that big of a stumbling block for Wolves then why have they managed to find 3 owners in the time they've had that lease situation, two of whom have made significant investments in the infrastructure on the land they don't own?

As Dan says - the bigger stumbling block for the ground is the bit the club does own, it doesn't generate a great deal of income and needs significant investment. The leasehold isn't putting that investment at any sort of risk for at least 800 years.

 

[Squeak]

If you were looking at a house with essentially a millennium long lease with zero ground rent then you're essentially buying a freehold. You'd have best part of 10 generations of your family to get though before the leasehold situation was even on anyone's radar.

If it was that big of a stumbling block for Wolves then why have they managed to find 3 owners in the time they've had that lease situation, two of whom have made significant investments in the infrastructure on the land they don't own?

As Dan says - the bigger stumbling block for the ground is the bit the club does own, it doesn't generate a great deal of income and needs significant investment. The leasehold isn't putting that investment at any sort of risk for at least 800 years.

For some investors it isn't seen as a stumbling block and in some cases an advantage as the purchase price will be less. For other's, they will see the problem as being unable to leverage the land to invest in the property. Different strokes for different folks but bottom line is that there is no significant value in the lease other than for the landlord.

 

[AndyWolves]

I think the problem is in terms of ROI for any ground developments. The length of time for payback plus the ephemeral nature of non top 6 clubs being in the PL makes it risky.

We're going to struggle to get more people in than we do now so I don't know if there is much scope to increase match day revenue?

The non match day revenue might be easier to achieve but I'm struggling to think of what that might look like, I can't imagine there is a demand for office space, conferencing facilities etc in Wolverhampton?

At some point we'll (the owners) have to do something, but it'll be because we (the owners) have to rather than wanting to

 

[Carsy]

Slight change of topic, but Re Cunha. Talking wolves saying about wolves being open to having the sale financed in installments.

Are most deals done that way now? Also with a release clause does that make a difference? (Maybe higher price but over installments?)

I would’ve thought the whole point of the release clause was get the funds in one wack?

 

[Kenny]

Slight change of topic, but Re Cunha. Talking wolves saying about wolves being open to having the sale financed in installments.

Are most deals done that way now? Also with a release clause does that make a difference? (Maybe higher price but over installments?)

I would’ve thought the whole point of the release clause was get the funds in one wack?

A release clause will be the same as any other transfer deal. We are just obligated to accept the offer the moment it hits the number in the contract and let the player officially speak with the other club. We can still negotiate how it is paid

A buy out clause, more used in Spain/Portugal, is one where the whole fee has to be paid in one go. In Spain the player generally has to be the one buying it. When Neymar left he had to pay his £200+ million fee direct to La Liga (amazingly in the days leading up it he did some PR work in Qatar and earned just enough to pay it off)

 

[Carsy]

A release clause will be the same as any other transfer deal. We are just obligated to accept the offer the moment it hits the number in the contract and let the player officially speak with the other club. We can still negotiate how it is paid

A buy out clause, more used in Spain/Portugal, is one where the whole fee has to be paid in one go. In Spain the player generally has to be the one buying it. When Neymar left he had to pay his £200+ million fee direct to La Liga (amazingly in the days leading up it he did some PR work in Qatar and earned just enough to pay it off)

Fairs, I was under the impression release clause were under the pretence of a lump sum.

So in theory a club could say ‘hiya Jeff, we’ll take Cunha, we will pay you 5m per year for the next 12 years, but give you 2.5m upfront?’

Seems daft to me

 

[AndyWolves]

Fairs, I was under the impression release clause were under the pretence of a lump sum.

So in theory a club could say ‘hiya Jeff, we’ll take Cunha, we will pay you 5m per year for the next 12 years, but give you 2.5m upfront?’

Seems daft to me

We then go to some like maquarie or whatever they're called and get the readies upfront and promise them the ongoing payment - for a fee of course.

 

[Tony Towner]

Fairs, I was under the impression release clause were under the pretence of a lump sum.

So in theory a club could say ‘hiya Jeff, we’ll take Cunha, we will pay you 5m per year for the next 12 years, but give you 2.5m upfront?’

Seems daft to me

Not unless they are giving him a 12 year contract

 

[Kenny]

So in theory a club could say ‘hiya Jeff, we’ll take Cunha, we will pay you 5m per year for the next 12 years, but give you 2.5m upfront?’

Seems daft to me

Daft to you..........DEAL to Jeff

 

[Tredman]

Fairs, I was under the impression release clause were under the pretence of a lump sum.

So in theory a club could say ‘hiya Jeff, we’ll take Cunha, we will pay you 5m per year for the next 12 years, but give you 2.5m upfront?’

Seems daft to me

See Diogo J.

We do seem to do some crap deals and then borrow at shitty rates to tide ourselves over - or even worse sell the remainder of the transfer debt for earlier money at a reduced amount.

 

[Squeak]

Daft to you..........DEAL to Jeff

Only if there is a guarantee behind it.

 

[AndyWolves]

Not unless they are giving him a 12 year contract

Would it matter? Theyd still have a contract with us to pay us the money owed

 

[Tony Towner]

Would it matter? Theyd still have a contract with us to pay us the money owed

I was being facetious, but it's the same rules as amortisation, so 5

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Yeah, we're 100% guaranteed the money whatever. So you can borrow against that to your heart's content. In security terms it's worth more than literal gold.

Why a solvent club with wealthy owners who have been in the PL for nearly 10 years should need to fund cashflow through external expensive loans is another issue.

All the downsides of being thrifty with none of the upsides.