20 Feb 2025 22:10:35
Rumour on X is that Man Utd will trigger the £62.5m release fee for Cunha this summer. But let's not forget, just because a club agrees to pay the release fee, the player himself can reject the move.

1.) 21 Feb 2025
21 Feb 2025 06:40:43
Wandering, I think wherever we are playing next season, he will be gone.
The best we can hope for, is there is a bidding war and we can leverage as much as we can from his transfer. Hopefully help build a decent transfer war chest for us to invest wisely (Fosun allowing).

2.) 21 Feb 2025
21 Feb 2025 07:46:28
Same old record… great player sold for big bucks only for the money to disappear and for Fosun to later allow last minute panic buying of unknown players with no prem experience!

3.) 21 Feb 2025
21 Feb 2025 07:53:04
I think he'll end up at Liverpool or abroad. My reasoning being, Man City have Marmoush, Haaland, Doku, Silva, Foden so don't need him. Arsenal have Saka, Trossard and Martinelli and will most likely pursue Sesko oe Sesko. Chelsea have ruined Pedro Neto and this will not have gone unnoticed by Cunha. Man Utd and Spurs cannot offer European football.

Liverpool may need to replace Jota and Salah and would seem the most obvious destination.

4.) 21 Feb 2025
21 Feb 2025 08:27:11
Man u do not have the money to buy Cunha they need to sell to buy. I think a deal has been done with Arsenal and the money will cover the signings we made in the last transfer window, and Wolves have changed their accounting end of year to June from May so they avoid PSR issues. Just my opinion.

5.) 21 Feb 2025
21 Feb 2025 10:17:09
Intriguing move by Wolves to push the accounting year-end to 30th June. Cunha's buyout clause is disappointingly low. I think several clubs will want to meet it. It would be in Cunha's interests if he is sold as cheaply as possible, so that he could screw his new club for as much salary as possible. If I was in charge I would have set the buyout clause at £100mil but Cunha would't have signed the contract then, for the foregoing reasons!

6.) 21 Feb 2025
21 Feb 2025 19:56:45
He's not interested in joining Man Utd or Spurs apparently.

7.) 22 Feb 2025
22 Feb 2025 02:40:14
Baza
I had noted that fact but didn't want to mention it as I sadly tend to agree with you and thus I would once again risk being "Thefutureis (very)bleak"
Clearly we will know the outcome of 23-24 in the next few weeks - some clubs have already reported.
But as we know the club passed PSR in 23-24 we can say that we must have broken even at worst.
Profits, (mainly losses), therefore for the last 3 years are
2021-22 -£43m
2022 -23 -£64m
2023-24 must be circa profit of £2m so that we get to a 3 year loss of no more than £105m.
How did we achieve that when pre player sales the previous year we lost well over £100m.
Well firstly we didn't sack a manager that year so perhaps our pre player sales losses did not increase from the previous year and may even have declined slightly
Secondly we sold a bucket load of talent - headlined of course by Neves, but it also included Nunes, Collins, Coady, and Jimenez etc etc.
Profits from these sales were probably in the region of £100m on their own.
However if we have moved our year end date to beyond the opening of the next transfer window we must have done it for a reason.
Perhaps we expected to sell a player in Jan, but didn't because we would be relegated if we sell another of our saleable players, (and to make matters worse actually signed 3 new players increasing both wages and amorts), then we would still need to sell at least one before the year end. This was not possible before as the market doesn't reopen until June, hence the need to move the date to the end of June.
Lets look at the numbers
Over the 3 years to 2024 -25 we need to have losses of less than £105m.
That means that
-£64m + £2m + 2024-25 loss must be below £105m, ie 2024 -25 loss must not exceed £43m.
Is it possible therefore that we are worried that this is not looking likely at the moment
A very scary statement given that we sold Kilman, Podence, Neto amongst others this year surely generating profits of over £100m.
Thus does this say that, including the pay off for GON our pre player losses have increased to more than £143m?
If that is the case not only are our accounts totally out of control but we would almost certainly need to sell further players at a profit of circa £80m in 2025-26 which is probably impossible given what will be left with after the sale (s) made in June 20025.
Surely things can't be this bleak but as Baza says what other explanation is there for doing this?

8.) 22 Feb 2025
22 Feb 2025 07:08:21
It is the Premier League who have moved the deadline to 30th June, not the club.

9.) 22 Feb 2025
22 Feb 2025 09:10:14
Wandering are you sure?
If so why?
Are you saying it is just Wolves the Premier league has forced to do this or is it all clubs?
As far as I can tell from Companies House Liverpool and Arsenal for example still have 31.5 as their year end?
Eds any info on this matter?

{Ed001's Note - I think he is getting mixed up between the dates of accounts being released and PRS calculations being done.}

10.) 22 Feb 2025
22 Feb 2025 09:47:54
Ed - do you know therefore if clubs that report at the end of May 2025 can include transactions done at the start of June 2025 in the 2025 PSR calculations.
If the answer to the q is yes then why have Wolves moved the date?
If the answer is no - which seems more consistent with accounting concepts - it does suggest does it not that perhaps Wolves do have PSR issues?

Regardless though all in all I tend to agree with Wandering that it would be sensible for all clubs to align the PSR date with their Financial year end.

{Ed001's Note - the reported accounts are separate, so it makes no real difference. It is just sensible and easier to produce the full accounts at the same time as you are producing the PSR documentation for the Premier League.}

11.) 22 Feb 2025
22 Feb 2025 10:15:23
Tks
So it may be a totally innocent piece of admin, simply doing as you say "making it simpler and easier to tie up the 2 reporting requirements"
Guess I am so sceptical I am seeing "issues" where none may exist.
Shame the club hasn't put out a statement explaining what it is doing and why - assuming they haven't and I haven't just missed it.

{Ed001's Note - you could well be right, but as they are changing the way it is calculated, it seems more likely to be just about making it easier to deal with. The 85% threshold has held a lot of clubs back from transfer business though, so who knows until the accounts are released? It is all guesswork until then, as no one knows what terms finance has been taken out on or payment terms of players coming in and leaving.}