Welcome to Wolves Matheus Cunha

[Dinowolf]

£45m relegation release clause

What, this is part of his new deal?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Does this help us with Player amortisation or something? What's the key benefit?

Into his final two years come the summer, original deal runs out in 2027

 

[Kenny]

What, this is part of his new deal?

Yep.

4 and half year deal with a further 1 year option.

If we go down, he can leave if someone offers £45m

Stay up and he will cost a small fortune.

 

[Haggstone]

Into his final two years come the summer, original deal runs out in 2027

Got it. Thanks.

 

[Tony Towner]

In terms of the contract, so that it offsets the negative impact of release clause on relegation. I'm assuming wed be looking for more like 60m on relegation if we go down without the clause?

Doesn't really have any PSR impact other than our wage bill increases. Obviously getting him to sign a longer contract in theory increases his value if we were to sell as a PL club and stops the risk of him him leaving for free in 2 years. As a Championship club I'd be surprised if we're able to get much more than £45m anyway unless there were a number of suitors, that's about what Maddison went for and teams know you/the player are desperate to move on.

 

[Dinowolf]

Yep.

4 and half year deal with a further 1 year option.

If we go down, he can leave if someone offers £45m

Stay up and he will cost a small fortune.

Thanks.
Let's hope we stay up then.

 

[Londonwolf]

I understand the prudence of inserting a relegation clause, but why £45m? Pricing him that low effectively means that relegation carries a financial incentive for him - since he can command a higher salary at his next club as they’ll be buying him below market value. And, should we stay up, we’ve effectively benchmarked our asking price for when we eventually decide to sell

 

[Tony Towner]

I understand the prudence of inserting a relegation clause, but why £45m? Pricing him that low effectively means that relegation carries a financial incentive for him - since he can command a higher salary at his next club as they’ll be buying him below market value. And, should we stay up, we’ve effectively benchmarked our asking price for when we eventually decide to sell

I don't agree with the last sentence, his value will be whatever the market dictates it is - north of £70m at the moment Id guess. In terms of the relegation clause, it's fair to assume that came from him. We are much better having him on a new contract with that clause than no contract at all.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

He isn't going to tank his own performances so we go down though, is he.

 

[Carsy]

Into his final two years come the summer, original deal runs out in 2027

Unfortunately the arse decided on my football manager save he was ‘going to explore’ his options once his contract finishes, telling me 20’months before it actually expired. Refused talks and has now signed with Porto on a free .

Glad to see real life Cunha is a nicer bloke than computer Cunha, unless you’re wearing spectacles Ofcourse

 

[Carsy]

Doesn't really have any PSR impact other than our wage bill increases. Obviously getting him to sign a longer contract in theory increases his value if we were to sell as a PL club and stops the risk of him him leaving for free in 2 years. As a Championship club I'd be surprised if we're able to get much more than £45m anyway unless there were a number of suitors, that's about what Maddison went for and teams know you/the player are desperate to move on.

The release clause will just be there for if we go down there’s no ‘haggling’ over price. Will be well known release clause is 45m. Ofcourse other teams would try and get him for less, but it’s fairly transparent.


Isn’t that the same as we bought him for?

 

[Trips]

He isn't going to tank his own performances so we go down though, is he.

Matt Dogerty (not a typo) has been doing that for years

 

[Bigbadwulf07]

I understand the prudence of inserting a relegation clause, but why £45m? Pricing him that low effectively means that relegation carries a financial incentive for him - since he can command a higher salary at his next club as they’ll be buying him below market value. And, should we stay up, we’ve effectively benchmarked our asking price for when we eventually decide to sell

then he wouldn't be signing a new contract at all

 

[Carsy]

Sky sports article.

Wolves forward Matheus Cunha's offer to buy new glasses for an Ipswich security guard he was involved in an altercation with helped convince an independent disciplinary panel to cut his ban from three matches to two.
The Brazilian was charged by the Football Association on December 16 after he was seen confronting members of Ipswich's security team following his side's last-gasp loss at Molineux two days earlier.
That included him grabbing the glasses of a security guard in the melee.

 

[Wilf Wolf]

The release clause will just be there for if we go down there’s no ‘haggling’ over price. Will be well known release clause is 45m. Ofcourse other teams would try and get him for less, but it’s fairly transparent.


Isn’t that the same as we bought him for?

Spurs will come in with a £25m bid.

 

[Carrotdude]

The actual wording from the document suggests it was as much about his sincere apology and clean disciplinary record up until now as it was about him buying the bloke new glasses. Still surprising they reduced it based on those though!

 

[Del Woppio]

Makes you wonder though, you'd have a thought that a sincere apology and new specs would've been the absolute least possible reaction, but it's apparently behaviour so rare and commendable that his punishment is cut!

 

[sycophantia]

It all sounds like a very grown up response to what happened (hard to believe I know). I wonder if Cunha went into see the Ipswich camp after he got control of himself to apologise.
I've not seen anything from Ipswich in response to the incident, either just after or since the charge.

 

[Kenny]

Annoying our defence of the Ipswich guy being a twat failed though...

 

[The Bear]

I don't agree in principle that the behaviour of Ipswich staff can't be used as a mitigating factor.

So they are essentially saying that how a person behaves towards you doesn't affect how you behave towards them? That's basic human nature! Even if his reaction was ultimately OTT.