Wolves Rumours Archive May 10 2016

 

Use our rumours form to send us wolves transfer rumours.


(single word yields best result)

10 May 2016 21:18:55
Any news on 'KJ' or the alleged takeover Mr 'T'?

Thanks in advance ;)



10 May 2016 22:40:48
Moxey singled out Bob Laslett for high praise at the awards do. Schmoozing perhaps?



10 May 2016 23:18:54
What's everyone's honest opinion of what's going to happen with this sale?

And where do you lot see us in exactly 1 years time?



11 May 2016 00:45:18
End of Season Dinner.

As we've said, a pretty uneventful season watching boring footy most of the time apart from some flashes of hope.

The Awards really if I’m truthful were pretty much a continuation of the season.
Young player of the year Conor Ronan.
Young professional of the year Dominic Iorfa
Top goal scorer (with 7 goals) James Henry
Players player of the year Matt Doherty
Goal of the season Matt Doherty
Fans player of the season Matt Doherty

I truly wish I could bring good news to the blog, but it’s not to be except for Doog and Wolfstroker.
The raffle Prizes were:-
A training day next season with training by (Kenny Jackett) and the team.
A signed photo of (Kenny Jackett) and the team of 2016/ 17.
A trip to Ireland with the team and be entertained at the hotel by (Kenny Jackett) .

(Kenny Jackett) said his aim was to get a team together to challenge for promotion Next season, surely Shirley, if this were a man that’s got the sack then Wolves have surely Shirley breached some trades description ruling.

Bob Laslett was there to receive an award for being the Wolves most prolific sponsor over the years, Poxey did elude to the fact that we are for sale and we are talking to some party but nothing concrete could be announced. (he was booed) If it is indeed Bob Laslett, then I’m concerned because he looked very non committal to me. (and a very scruffy twoddle)

I was expecting more, but I should be used to that by now after this season.

Sorry bloggers that’s what we got.



11 May 2016 05:41:27
Who is Shirley



11 May 2016 06:35:37
Shirley that's a joke. Like our Jez.



11 May 2016 08:09:19
'Shirley' you can't be serious!



11 May 2016 09:38:04
Basically no one is interested in the club, Jackett is going nowhere.



11 May 2016 10:06:10
That Paul Tamworth was talking bollocks then. Knew it, KJ ain't going anywhere.



11 May 2016 10:24:53
Looks like Jackett is staying, god help us!



11 May 2016 10:34:07
Johnwwfc1.
At best, negotiations are underway. If anyone thinks that a sale has been agreed with Laslett, or Grayken, or anyone else, they are mistaken. I think a sale will probably be concluded before the new season, but we could still be in limbo in a year's time.



11 May 2016 11:50:07
Maybe it's simply the case, Moneyshop are trying to buy and are still in negotiations, but Morgan has been resisting because he genuinely wants us to have a decent buyer and future (important for his legacy) .

So, Moxey agreed the sponsorship with Moneyshop because they promised to keep him on as CEO if he did and if they were able to buy, and because the sponsorship made the club much less attractive and so much less saleable to anyone other than Moneyshop? Maybe Moxey is stitching Morgan up with the Moneyshop sponsorship too, just to get new owners he knows will keep him in his job?



11 May 2016 12:04:23
You really think Morgan had no idea about the sponsorship- absolute rubbish. He has a man on the board who is his eyes and ears this would not have happened without his approval.

You really need to stop reading too much into Moneyshop buying the club. Did we know they would be the sponsors? No, the rumours broke a few hours before it was announced.



11 May 2016 12:47:44
Ap got to agree with that post, all this money shop guess work is getting boring.



11 May 2016 14:05:58
I think it's likely Moneyshop sponsorship was passed by Morgan, and disinterested / sulking as he is, he didn't give it any attention and didn't think it through, instead he gave approval and relied (as he has a right to) on Moxey's advice that it wouldn't be an issue. I suspect Morgan is now annoyed about Moneyshop because of the backlash, it will harm his reputation, harm his charity work, leave him with a very negative legacy, I think by banging on about it, he's our best hope getting it binned. And it's needs to be, because for some, Moneyshop is the end of the club.

And re Moneyshop buying - it is a cast iron fact, that 3yr sponsorship harms Wolves reach and potential, makes the club much less attractive and saleable to anyone but Moneyshop. So why was it implemented when the club is supposedly up for sale if Moneyshop aren't the buyers? If it's just a mistake, it's needs pursuing because it's such a massive mistake, it's got to be best bet to get rid of Moxey.



11 May 2016 14:13:47
I agree ULF can you post around 11pm when I'm having trouble sleeping!



11 May 2016 14:53:59
Where actually is it fact that it harms our saleability? It could be argued that it's guaranteed to provide income for 3 years.

Other clubs have sponsorship deals panning more than one year this is no different. I'm not happy about it being Moneyshop but I don't see it being any different in terms of our sale if it were another company.



11 May 2016 15:38:05
It's reasonable to push this as hard as possible now, because every day goes past, it's less likely it will get cancelled because shirts and merchandising are being printed. More time passes, more of that happens, more cost and bigger hassle to bin. Plus, this last week, with End of Season Dinner and kit launch has been a peak of activity relating to it, giving a platform to complain about it. Today is probably the last day of opportunity. In a week or so, attention will have moved on or gone off, no longer the platform and opportunity. So it's worth lobbying hard now about it, tiny and last chance to before it's too late.

And I'm not going to go through why it harms Wolves or why it makes Wolves less saleable again or in more depth, because it's boring. But it does. You should have seen what total fascists Man U were about their brand identity when I worked on their credit card, proper professionals and it's part of why they're such a success. In comparison we couldn't be more amateur and small time about our identity, despite it being our greatest asset.



11 May 2016 16:47:18
Can someone please explain WHY The sponsorship is such a big deal.

I'm a Wolves fan all my life and can't for the life of me see where all the hassle is.

It's just a sponsor, we aren't the first and certainly won't be the last club to be sponsored by a sponsor some fans didn't want.

I remember the last time the minority was listened too. (Steve Bruce) .



11 May 2016 16:58:14
Whilst I agree with ulf and can see the damage a shirt sponsor such as money shop can do to our standing as a club and respect to our history, who else do you think would want to sponsor us?



11 May 2016 17:08:31
Re why it's a bad sponsor. Lots of reasons, but one good one is - Blackpool and Wonga. How long ago was that, and Blackpool is still tarnished as a pay-day loan society because of it, it's harmed the towns image and regeneration. So it's at odds with WWFC being a positive force for image of the area, with Moneyshop it becomes a negative one.

And re other sponsor, if it is worth only £500k per season as trade press suggested, we'd have been as well not having a sponsor at all and having a heritage shirt with 3 wolves, re it's a heritage yr - 50yrs since England won World cup. We'd have made as much in shirt sales as Moneyshop paid us and will lose us in shirt sales, to some extent would have helped WWFC close the fan gap they've been creating since they didn't replace Sako, I bet the support the team would have had in those shirts would be worth points on the league table.



11 May 2016 18:28:07
When was the last time you went to Blackpool I think it's been in decline a lot longer than the sponsor from Wonga! I do agree with you on a long term basis this can damage but let's face it we're not an amazingly attractive prospect, mid-table looking for new owners and no ambition to progress.
I still think everyone is jumping to conclusions and Moxey is the master of spin so I think it will be someone we haven't even heard of we only get to know what we should know and all this talk of a close source within the club would they really risk loosing their job? Where's Ian Martin when you need him?



11 May 2016 19:37:22
Not been since I was a kid but used to work and so live Northwest so Blackpool was on my regional news, very sad it was so run down but they were investing lots trying to turn it around. It does have a lot of stunning Victorian architecture and sea front (if it's clean yet) , it does have a lot of cultural history, it did have potential to be fashionable and popular again.

It does have an image as being a bit cheap and tacky, but only because of how over exploited it was in mid 20th Cent. Now, that could just be interesting cultural history, make the place more intellectual but racey (kind of like Brighton has done) . Most of the Country didn't have a clue how it is now, gave it the potential to keep trying to improve and to get back on it's feet. But Blackpool FC carrying Wonga in Prem, rubber stamped that Blackpool was run down to the whole Nation, and that'll stick long-term. People will assume they don't need to check it out, they know it's rubbish - so it will have deterred shopping, tourism, other investment, harmed their opportunities to regenerate and be something better. I guess Oysten saw it as just more of the same old Blackpool thing, over exploiting, effectively dropping your litter wherever and not caring. But that's meant to be the past, everywhere, Blackpool was turning a corner, Oysten and Blackpool FC gave that the kiss of death with Wonga. WWFC are risking doing similar to Wolverhampton with Moneyshop.

Our Country is tragic, our leaders have no vision or feel, we are just a market and resource for them to exploit, not a community or anywhere special. Except maybe Burnley might be, and Leicester!

Re genuine rumours, I agree nothing will leak out of Wolves, but stuff could leak from a prospective buyer, why Laslett rumour might be more plausible as people may have contacts his side.



11 May 2016 19:59:12
You know ulf the 3 wolves shirt had gone through my mind too. It'd be ideal, but then again does it suggest a lack of interest or of a proud club doing it their way? People will make up their own minds, but I know how I interpret money shop and my kids won't be endorsing them by wearing the replica. Incidently their favorite of old, ( understandibly) , is the doritos design, promotion et al



11 May 2016 20:23:46
I think the club could have played it really well, spin doctoring is easy when you have momentum and that 3 Wolves shirt would have had loads of momentum in public opinion, outpaced any criticism straight to glory. Would have made so much on shirt sales, put other clubs to shame too, added to fortress Mol (lol) .

Maybe Morgan could still do it now, his way of recommitting, say he's realised the club needs to get back to basics and push on but with heritage intact, would make him a hero and give next season such a huge boost, crowd support would be worth more points than they'll get out of the Moneyshop money however they spend it.

And yes the Dorito's shirt - I avoided it at the time, it still annoys me now (cuz they did it for their brand colours blue and orange, we really were orange not gold in that shirt) . But actually I do really like it now because of the promotion and people I associate with it - better times, should have got one. And I do like Dorito's anyway. But I KNOW I won't be saying that about Moneyshop shirt, even if we landed on the moon in it, I just don't want to it as part of my identity.



12 May 2016 09:35:58
Surely the demise of Blackpool has nothing to do with wonga more to do with families being turned off the town by the influx of stag and hen parties.
The days of it being a family town went long before the football club took wonga as a sponsor.



12 May 2016 10:42:33
Yes I agree, but the Wonga sponsorship meant Blackpool was branded to the rest of the Nation as a broken underclass place, which harmed Blackpool's chances of breaking out of being that and becoming something better again (which it was slowly doing) . It's a true thing, money sticks.

Newcastle get away with Wonga, because Newcastle is already seen as a working class club, but the place is also so big and isolated, it's like a regional capital city, everyone knows it has the full range of classes, both rich and poor, good and bad areas, Shearer is a household name, its image is too big, strong, and well established to be affected by Wonga. But relatively small places like Blackpool and Wolves with weak largely unknown to the Nation modern identities and that are struggling and need to regenerate, are overwhelmed by the image of a pay-day lender, the negative identity of its industry is too strong - people will make assumptions about what Wolverhampton is like based on our association with Moneyshop. And if they check, because their looking for it there's plenty to back that negative assumption up.

Like Blackpool, Wolverhampton needs to be promoting what's good about itself (even if it's only potential to be better) , but Moneyshop makes that impossible, promotes and exaggerates the bad stuff that turns people away / stops them coming / shopping / investing etc. Wolverhampton was known as Queen of the Black Country, she deserves better than being branding to the rest of the Nation as a broken pay-day loan society. SJH would be spinning in his grave.



12 May 2016 11:01:04
All is not doom and gloom, this is what Moxey said followed by the Express & lie interview.

Moxey don't give a lot away (nothing) in fact

goo.gl/eouury



12 May 2016 12:22:57
Ulf I have to disagree, you're overthinking this completely. The reason Newcastle "got away" with having Wonga on the shirts was purely there was not as much fan backlash over the issue. In terms of Blackpool, the town's image/ regeneration, it has not been harmed by their football team having links with a payday loan company. Blackpool has been in need of regeneration for years and years and needs investment/ re-branding to change its image. Nothing to do with the football team.

I think its more a case of investment in areas by these companies in which they may see more of a return. I. e. Market research indicating that of the football teams that they can afford sponsorship, certain towns have a high potential for profit for them. More of a case of we'll sponsor Wolves because we can afford to and people around there are more likely to use our services.

I have a hard time believing that it's in any way linked to a take over or trying to get around FFP. I would have thought that if it's that simple, it would have been done by other teams and the loophole would have been quickly closed by UEFA.



12 May 2016 12:40:23
I'll be surprised if it's not Moneyshop who buys, and if so, in hindsight, I think we'll see evidence to suggest that was always what was going to happen and we've been played since last September.

But if so and all of WWFC's ducking and diving into mediocrity this season has just been because this season was abandoned early on in favour of selling to Moneyshop and creating maximum resource and chance for their first season - next season, and the sponsorship is just to get a big Prem push warchest round FFP for next season (alongside Moneyshop's purchase of the club) , who knows how it will work out, it might be ok. I don't object to Moneyshop owner buying, I object to WWFC and Wolverhampton being sponsored by and so branded to the Nation as Moneyshop, and so as a broken underclass pay-day loan society. But it might just be a temporary FFP trick, we'll see.



12 May 2016 13:02:14
The partnership with Moneyshop started 7 years ago and no one even mentioned it then. Has it damaged our image NO. The only damage we have had is negative football, the sale of our best players and no new investment after these sales.
A 3 year sponsorship deal is better than the 1 year with Silverbug and revenue over a longer period makes for a better business to invest in and purchase. So I think this is all about making Wolves a more lucrative business to buy.



12 May 2016 14:17:25
Stand sponsorship isn't really sponsorship at all, it's fancy jargon to make out it has more value. Unless a sponsor has actually paid for the stand to be built and so it and the fans in it are only there supporting because of the sponsor - it's an inanimate object, it doesn't take any part in or affect the competition, it's just advertising space, that doesn't reflect on the fans or club at all.

A shirt sponsor though, a sponsor as main partner with the club as Moneyshop now are (and weren't before) is a completely different thing, with shirt worn by the players and fans, it is part of the competition, what unites us and what we're cheering on, and so the sponsor becomes part of the identity of the club - to us and to the outside World.

And re 3yr Moneyshop is better than 1 more yr Silverbug - how, when we could have got another sponsor for the following 2 yrs. In my pro opinion, if it's not a trick to get tons of cash round FFP, we'd have been better off (financially long-term) with either no sponsor and a heritage shirt, or a free charity sponsor, never mind Silverbug who are fine and would have paid something. And, considering a 3yr tied sponsorship with Moneyshop (a sub-prime sponsor) makes the club less saleable. 1 yr with Silverbug who are not sub-prime wouldn't have.

And no one can deny it does make the club less saleable, if in only terms of the fan reaction. Game or 2 back, Moxey made a statement in the match program saying the fans needed to be as united, positive, supportive of the club as possible to make club most saleable. With Moneyshop he's achieved the opposite - divided fans and caused endless aggro - so in Moxey logic it makes us less saleable.

And, that shirt does divide fans, it will undermine support in games next season, it will give opposition something to take the micky out of, we'll be weaker supporting and so playing because of that shirt (compared to one everyone would have enjoyed supporting) , it's likely to lose us more points than the sponsorship Money can buy us however it's spent (unless it is a massive warchest to get round FFP) .



12 May 2016 18:43:21
Dunno bout charity sponsors these pinstriped monstrosities look like they've come from the racks of a charity shop. Last seen in div 3/4. And that's the impression money shop logo gives. Why the yellow underline?



 
Change Consent