09 May 2016 18:27:35
To all you takeover conspiracy theorists, I can add something new and factual. This info is from banking contacts: The Lone Star chairman, John Grayken, is moving back to Boston in the USA. That implies he is less likely to be buying Wolves. Lone Star own The Money Shop.
Of course, you can live in the USA AND own an English football club.
09 May 2016 19:28:42
Ellis Short owns Lone Star and Sunderland FC. Is he allowed to control 2 clubs in the same country?
09 May 2016 20:22:35
I think Ellis Short is just his partner and owns Sunderland himself, rather through Lone-Star, Grayken isn't involved in Sunderland so could buy Wolves (maybe in his own right, or through Lone-Star, or through it's subsidiary Dollar) .
There's only circumstantial evidence linking Grayken anyway, but that's the same for every buyer suggested, and it is by far the largest amount of circumstantial evidence out of those rumoured. And, the rumours about him buying were about long time before Moneyshop (his Company) became main sponsors (which no one seemed to expect and is highly suspect, because it makes the club less saleable to anyone but Moneyshop, and it could be a trick allowing them to beat FFP) .
09 May 2016 23:46:17
The club is being sold to Bob Laslett, how many more times doi need to tell you?
10 May 2016 09:39:02
I know, but then that makes Moxey's Moneyshop deal make no sense all, because if Moneyshop aren't buying and the sponsorship was just ordinary business, then it harmed the clubs reach and potential for no good purpose and made it significantly less saleable.
I'd imagine Laslett would have had to have known about the sponsorship and either agreed it wouldn't deter him buying and he'd keep it (and so suffer the fan rebellion about it) , or agreed he'd pay to have it cancelled, which I have serious trouble believing. I also have trouble believing Morgan would walk away at this point, with Moneyshop engaged, as his reputation and legacy is currently in tatters and will be for $$$$ if he doesn't stay and put some of it right.
So until it's definitely announced I remain sceptical, both that it is Laslett and that if so, it's automatically a good thing. We shall see :-)
10 May 2016 10:30:38
Just a thought but I might be wrong, remember a lot of the newcastle players went on strike when they announced a deal with WONGA due their religion. Could us being sponsored by the money shop have the same affect on any buyers from say the middle east/ far east?
10 May 2016 11:26:53
That's a very good point, I think it could be seen as usury, which is a no-no in original Christianity and so probably in much of Africa. I guess though you could say the same about gambling or alcohol sponsorship with Islam, but then they'd be anti-usury too. So yes - it would rule out a buyer from a lot of other religious cultures and probably more than any other product sponsored would.
This religious aspect would also have a bearing on WWFC's supporter reach as it makes Wolves unsupportable to some cultures, making it an even worse fit for Wolves considering it's culturally diverse region.
Definitely the biggest hit though will be what the English middle class and rural will think. If we were Baggies, it wouldn't matter so much, because like Newcastle FC with Wonga, their identity is already working class and urban, so while still ugly, Moneyshop wouldn't change their identity and lesson their reach.
Wolves though had a glamorous inclusive identity that is conflicted by class limited and urban Moneyshop, Wolves does traditionally have big middle class and rural support (eg Elgar ) , many of whom won't tolerate Moneyshop as part of their identity. So Moneyshop is going to harm Wolves current support and will kill it's reach and so potential to be a properly big club again.
If Moneyshop aren't buying and if they haven't paid Wolves many many millions for this sponsorship, Moxey is a crazy whose sold Wolves out way too cheap. If he's not sacked for agreeing Moneyshop at all, he should be sacked for getting Wolves fleeced by them by agreeing the deal way too cheap.
10 May 2016 11:37:41
Banbury.
I hear you. You're either completely right or completely wrong. Bob Laslett would be infinitely preferable to Money Shop as a buyer. As Ulf says above, the Money Shop deal doesn't make sense if Laslett is buying in. And yes, a potential player from a Muslim background would have objections to a Wonga-type sponsor.
10 May 2016 11:57:43
Honestly religion now! Whens the Pope postin! If someone wants to invest in our club accept it with both hands! We were in The Money Shop stand at Forest! I couldn't hear anybody moanin! The high street is full with money lenders and bettin shops! Wakey Wakey its 2016! I bet not all abromovics money at Chelsea hasn't come by legit means? Can't hear Chelsea fans moanin!
10 May 2016 12:04:07
@Banbury - any idea when the sale will be announced?
10 May 2016 12:21:37
The funny thing is about Notts Forest Moneyshop stand, is Moneyshop is a Nottingham based company, it's where their head office is, and where they employ hundreds of people. So why hasn't Notts Forest agreed a special relationship with that major local employer and let them on their shirts instead of Wolves?
Cuz Notts Forest is a glamorous inclusive club like Wolves, that includes middle class and rural support, and who wouldn't brand themselves Moneyshop for anything as they know it would change their identity and kill their reach and potential to be big again. A sponsored stand makes no difference, it's just advertising space, shirts are different though, it's the clubs identity. Forest probably have pro marketing consultants who told them what a suicidal idea it would be, unlike Wolves who rely on totally amateur and incompetent Moxey.
And re religion, I'm guessing the Pope is going to be a fan next season, considering our green hoopy socks making us look like Black Country Celtic.
Honestly, if this was a Viz comic strip it would be too unlikely to be funny.
10 May 2016 12:47:23
If that's the case they want to go and ask Money Shop for a loan as their ground is lookin tired and could do with a makeover!
10 May 2016 13:13:02
I agree, Forest does look tired, but I guess they know their heroic identity and it's potential reach is their biggest asset by far, and they're worth much more with that protected and intact, than with it sold out for money that might make them look more flush for now, but would lose them all their future potential to be something again.
Like, apparently, you can tell a gentlemen / well off person by if they have good shoes, they can otherwise wear total tat. Moneyshop is like the shoes, bad cheap shoes, wear a Saville Row suit with bad cheap shoes, you're still a scrub, only an embarrassing one trying too hard :-) lol, we should check out Moxey's shoes (although I doubt he's seen his own feet for decades) .
10 May 2016 13:20:26
Paul T,
It's not just religious objections to money-lenders. It's also the fact that some companies prey on vulnerable people. That's beyond doubt and has been discussed fully on this forum already. It's not just moneylenders. The Russian owner of Chelsea seems to have made his wealth by getting hold of publicly-owned assets at a fraction of what they were worth. That's stealing from the Russian people. The breweries and tobacco companies etc could also be held to account. Where do you draw the line? I don't know. If John Grayken, the Lone Star guy, buys Wolves, I won't like the way he has made his money but I will give him a fair hearing at Wolves and hope it works out for all concerned.
10 May 2016 13:28:23
But if moneyshop and it's like is so despised by anyone from a Muslim background why would forest have a moneyshop named stand?
Are they not owned by a Muslim businessman?
All this b****x about it ruining the clubs wider appeal is frankly outdated.
The great majority don't care where the money comes from as long as it brings success.
Just ask Chelsea and Man City fans.
10 May 2016 13:50:00
To an extent I agree Deep Throat, especially about Abramovich, saw a BBC doc about the poor who live in the Russian regions he's Governor of - takes their oil and gas resources and spends it on his own super luxury and on Chelsea, while those Russian poor live in Siberian conditions, in draughty sheds without heating, having to drink vodka 24/ 7 as anti-freeze to stay alive. Sickening. Grayken's money is much better than that, but there are other concerning things about Grayken.
He took Irish citizenship, but according to their press, is best known in Ireland for buying portfolio's of distressed mortgages and evicting people, in Ireland he's apparently known as Mr. Bailiff. We have good support in Ireland. Then there's the involvement he had in South Korean banks, that led to a criminal investigation (although don't know what findings were and not implying he was guilty) , but where he apparently made significant financial pledges in Court, that having left the Country he apparently never honoured. And, was apparently quite happy to leave some of his colleagues there to go to jail for it. Then there's what official rich analysis reviews in America claim, that almost everyone who has worked with him and trusted him has regretted it. That's just from half an hour googling foreign press reports.
So there's a definite trust issue, he could promise the Earth about good intentions but who knows. He may well want to buy the club, push a load of money into it around FFP via sub-prime Moneyshop sponsorship, get promoted by buying league (maybe £40m, + £30m to buy club) , then sells Wolves as Prem club for £100m, fast turn around big profit, exactly as per all his other vulture fund businesses. But to get fast sale and most money, he'd probably sell to anyone and that could be awful. Mind you, as long as we were Prem, that may be good enough for some supporters.
But in principle, I agree, I have my own moral issues with Moneyshop that make me very unhappy the club is partnered with them. But my biggest concern is how it will damage Wolves identity, reach, and potential. If Grayken is buying and Moneyshop sponsorship will be seen in hindsight as just a temporary trick to get a load of investment round FFP, so it's a wrong to beat a bigger unfair wrong (FFP rules) , and if we did get to Prem Moneyshop sponsorship was dropped so we weren't branded to the Nation as that, it could work out ok. Roller coast ride with big fear, but at least there'd be some hope too.
10 May 2016 14:05:09
Ulf your clearly hung up on class issue, well sorry mate but get real please class does not come into it neither does your rural theory. I would also hazard a bet that out of the 13000 on line signitures against the Money Market are not even Wolves fans.
10 May 2016 14:16:53
Re Bigcheese, the word sponsorship is overused and abused. Stands aren't really sponsored at all, it's just poncy jargon the clubs use to try and increase the perceived value of what they're selling. Stands are inanimate objects not involved in the competition, so they can't be sponsored, they're just advertising space. Exactly like the crash barriers and bridges on F1 circuits, just background scenery, don't reflect on teams like sponsors names on cars that are competing do.
That's all Forest (and us with John Ireland Stand, now SJH stand since May15) did having Moneyshop pay for their name to be on them. It doesn't reflect on or affect the identity of the club in anyway. But main sponsor, sponsoring the shirt (worn by the players who are competing) , worn by the fans who support them, with Moneyshop named as our sponsor-partner, we'd be actually playing for Moneyshop. We're being asked to support Moneyshop. That's a massive change in identity and a massive barrier that lose Wolves support and revenue, like stand advertising never could.
10 May 2016 14:43:52
Ulf.
If Grayken is buying us you could be right about Money Shop being a temporary ruse to get round FFP, with MS eventually being dropped. The rumour about re-locating Wolves to a new build site could also be part of an old pal's agreement with Morgan to develop Molineux for housing. As unsettling as all of this is, it can only really work with us being established in the PL. The ends could justify the means.
If Banbury Wolf is right and we get Bob Laslett, where does that leave the Money Shop sponsorship? I don't know.
10 May 2016 14:51:39
First of all Notts Forest is owned by a Muslim. Fawaz al-Hasawi so sorry that out with what you are saying about a stand at the City Ground.
Now Moxey that nice ratbag of a CEO of ours takes Money Ship as a main sponsor. This will rule out potential buyers from the middle East and Asia for obvious reasons, that small point will have some bearing on his decision rest assured of that.
Ulf please stop this sociological wishy washy stuff it's really tedious and I do not believe it is accurate either. So rural Salop has more Wolves fans than the working class West Midlands? Never in a million years. I accept your point of view is your right but enough please.
10 May 2016 14:58:05
Forgot 2 points
1 Money Shop sponsorship is £1.5 million maximum may be a bit less, so hardly affects selling price
2 KJ took over Wolves on 31 May so his 12 month contract still valid and running. Aha but I forgot if they say good bye still have to pay him 1 years money anyway, so forget I spoke as just talked myself out of what I was about to say to Paul T! Lol
He ain't going mate I an telling you.
10 May 2016 15:01:22
Ulf call it what you like they are basically the same thing if you think that it offends a Muslim based regime so much why would forest have it all over there stand?
You and a few others on here are getting your knickers in a twist over nothing in my opinion.
The club needed a sponsor/ advertiser call it what you will and moneyshop have payed what the club wanted. Job done in my opinion.
I think your premice that we become a tainted brand because we have moneyshop on our shirts is in this day and age is laughable.
They may not be the most appealing name for our shirt but the neither was Doritos.
Now there was a branding error!
10 May 2016 15:15:22
There's a reason I'm hung up on it, identity and meaning is where my head is naturally stuck at (along with Wolves, so it's a bad collision) . Always has been, which is why I ended up working at a reasonably high level in marketing, because I can only do what I can naturally do. And I know from how my head naturally is, from working in marketing (including brand marketing and on Man U and Newcastle FC credit cards) , and from later on working in marketing for football pools, this is how the English football scene, and English culture and market is.
The modern World, England and Mid/ North Wales, is increasingly without class, more an artisan meritocracy where individuals transcend class (it's how rural has been for ages) . They want to associate with things that are attractive by being real and having integrity but are still exciting, like they want to be seen as. Wolves glamorous inclusive heroic heritage (and the regions original grass roots artisan / small and medium sized business and enterprise heritage) naturally fits that perfectly, it's hugely attractive, like Man U's but as a seed. The urban working class clubs though, like Baggies, Everton, Brum, don't fit the modern world, if they want to have more support and be bigger clubs than just their urban locals, they need to evolve and be more glamorous and inclusive, less class defined. And most of them are trying to.
With Moneyshop though, Moxey is taking Wolves into being working class and urban (when we aren't) , and it's exactly the wrong direction for the modern World. It will harm Wolves current support but won't kill Wolves, it will though give them a glass ceiling and make it much harder to ever be a big club with big National support ever again. It will hurt a small amount forever, be a brick wall ahead and add up to serious damage.
Fingers crossed Moneyshop gets cancelled, or is just a FFP trick that will get us to Prem then be dropped, and be seen in hindsight as a maverick heroic 2 fingers up at the establishment to beat their unfairness :-)
(and it doesn't matter if they're not Wolves fans. Deduct the Newky fans who have their own chip and allegiance, the rest are indicative that Wolves are a much less attractive, inclusive, and supportable club because of Moneyshop. Current Wolves fans aren't the biggest issue, it's the potential for more, our reach that Moneyshop really kills and that the petition volume suggests) .
10 May 2016 15:22:46
Molineux CANNOT be developed, Wolves took out a 999 year lease on the stadium plot. The council also put a clause it to say it will always be a football stadium. They chose not to give Wolves/ Morgan a free hold, because they feared he would do exactly as you said.
10 May 2016 14:51:39
First of all Notts Forest is owned by a Muslim. Fawaz al-Hasawi so sorry that out with what you are saying about a stand at the City Ground.
Now Moxey that nice ratbag of a CEO of ours takes Money Ship as a main sponsor. This will rule out potential buyers from the middle East and Asia for obvious reasons, that small point will have some bearing on his decision rest assured of that.
Ulf please stop this sociological wishy washy stuff it's really tedious and I do not believe it is accurate either. So rural Salop has more Wolves fans than the working class West Midlands? Never in a million years. I accept your point of view is your right but enough please.
10 May 2016 14:58:05
Forgot 2 points
1 Money Shop sponsorship is £1.5 million maximum may be a bit less, so hardly affects selling price
2 KJ took over Wolves on 31 May so his 12 month contract still valid and running. Aha but I forgot if they say good bye still have to pay him 1 years money anyway, so forget I spoke as just talked myself out of what I was about to say to Paul T! Lol
He ain't going mate I an telling you.
10 May 2016 15:01:22
Ulf call it what you like they are basically the same thing if you think that it offends a Muslim based regime so much why would forest have it all over there stand?
You and a few others on here are getting your knickers in a twist over nothing in my opinion.
The club needed a sponsor/ advertiser call it what you will and moneyshop have payed what the club wanted. Job done in my opinion.
I think your premice that we become a tainted brand because we have moneyshop on our shirts is in this day and age is laughable.
They may not be the most appealing name for our shirt but the neither was Doritos.
Now there was a branding error!
10 May 2016 15:15:22
There's a reason I'm hung up on it, identity and meaning is where my head is naturally stuck at (along with Wolves, so it's a bad collision) . Always has been, which is why I ended up working at a reasonably high level in marketing, because I can only do what I can naturally do. And I know from how my head naturally is, from working in marketing (including brand marketing and on Man U and Newcastle FC credit cards) , and from later on working in marketing for football pools, this is how the English football scene, and English culture and market is.
The modern World, England and Mid/ North Wales, is increasingly without class, more an artisan meritocracy where individuals transcend class (it's how rural has been for ages) . They want to associate with things that are attractive by being real and having integrity but are still exciting, like they want to be seen as. Wolves glamorous inclusive heroic heritage (and the regions original grass roots artisan / small and medium sized business and enterprise heritage) naturally fits that perfectly, it's hugely attractive, like Man U's but as a seed. The urban working class clubs though, like Baggies, Everton, Brum, don't fit the modern world, if they want to have more support and be bigger clubs than just their urban locals, they need to evolve and be more glamorous and inclusive, less class defined. And most of them are trying to.
With Moneyshop though, Moxey is taking Wolves into being working class and urban (when we aren't) , and it's exactly the wrong direction for the modern World. It will harm Wolves current support but won't kill Wolves, it will though give them a glass ceiling and make it much harder to ever be a big club with big National support ever again. It will hurt a small amount forever, be a brick wall ahead and add up to serious damage.
Fingers crossed Moneyshop gets cancelled, or is just a FFP trick that will get us to Prem then be dropped, and be seen in hindsight as a maverick heroic 2 fingers up at the establishment to beat their unfairness :-)
(and it doesn't matter if they're not Wolves fans. Deduct the Newky fans who have their own chip and allegiance, the rest are indicative that Wolves are a much less attractive, inclusive, and supportable club because of Moneyshop. Current Wolves fans aren't the biggest issue, it's the potential for more, our reach that Moneyshop really kills and that the petition volume suggests) .
10 May 2016 15:22:46
Molineux CANNOT be developed, Wolves took out a 999 year lease on the stadium plot. The council also put a clause it to say it will always be a football stadium. They chose not to give Wolves/ Morgan a free hold, because they feared he would do exactly as you said.
10 May 2016 16:01:07
Sorry, double post?
Anyway, I could go on for ages referencing things to justify it but it's boring, I don't mind people don't see it and don't agree, but it doesn't stop it being true. I've no agenda at all other than what's best for Wolves long term (club and region) .
(and I never suggested Shropshire had more Wolves supporters than urban West Mids at all. But do you really think Wolves are best placed to compete in that urban West Mids market as an urban working class club (effectively same identity as Baggies have traditionally) , against the Baggies who are that but Prem and way ahead of us? Or at the other end of the market, against Villa, who are glam and inclusive / not-class-defined (like Wolves were upto Moneyshop) , and more Prem than us, and more likely to be Prem again sooner than us? As Moneyshop Wolves, we lose to both Baggies and Villa. And with West Mids market is exhausted (portions already won by whichever club and with all shifts away from Wolves) , where else are Wolves going to get new support from to be a big club again? Newcastle have a working class identity and are in a perfect position to exploit their region (so isolated it's effectively a monopoly) . But their working class identity gives them a glass ceiling, will never be bigger than they are, because they appeal to no one but their own. Unlike Newcastle (or Everton, but like Liverpool or Man U) , Wolves were a heroic glam inclusive everyman's club, Moneyshop risks ending that.
10 May 2016 16:33:16
Re Derbywolf, not sure but I think the £1.5m figure was from trade press speculation, I don't believe WWFC disclosed the amount - they may have hinted but I wouldn't trust them if it's big and they're trying to keep it quiet to stop transfer fee inflation.
And even if it is only £1.5m, it might be another bit in compensation to Moneyshop to cancel, plus if shirts and merchandising stuff already printed, wasted stock and replacement - maybe £2m to £2.5m total (and possibly too late to get other sponsor to make up loss and hassle with getting new clean merchandising stock) - that's a player fee, a meaningful dent in FFP spend, and a nasty hit for a new owner or Morgan to take (getting on for 10% of the actual total club sale price) .
And real problem is once Moneyshop has gone live and is established it will change WWFC's identity, reduce its attractiveness and inclusivity, and so reduce its reach and potential. So if we don't sell this Summer and Moneyshop does go live, then Wolves would be less of a good investment and less saleable going forward.
I wouldn't be worried, Moneyshop sponsorship is so crazy I'd assume it must be a clever FFP trick and will work out ok. But I remember that Moxey has previously always identified Wolves with Everton, when that's wrong in the same way as this. Wolves are the regions glamorous heroic club like Liverpool FC, Baggies are like urban working class Everton. I suspect we have Moneyshop, simply because Moxey is a marketing wannabe / amateur who doesn't understand the clubs true identity or potential.
10 May 2016 17:14:06
I asked the religion question just to see peoples thoughts, my personal opinion is had wolves been promoted this season or at least got in to the play offs I don't think a lot of fans would have an issue with the Moneyshop deal and I think due to the season we've had it's another good reason to have a go at the club, I do however think the deal does damage our image and I most likely won't be purchasing the kit for my own reasons ( don't suit v necks or green) but were clearly a club that puts money before the fans these days so I just hope we get a new owner who changes that.
10 May 2016 17:27:55
ULF did you kick up a fuss when Sporting Bet was announced? Isn't gambling against Muslim values and I'm sure gambling has been more detrimental than any money lenders.
I don't believe for one minute that the Moneyshop owners are remotely interested in owning Wolves and see the 3 year sponsorship as meerly a commercial deal. As stated so many times we are the last to know on everything. Let's look at it did anyone foresee the Moneyshop sponsor NO it was leaked a few hours before and now a contract has been signed it will not be changed. The same as news on new owners, Jacket leaving and transfers. It has made me laugh in the past some of the rumours but it's getting all a bit childish and throwing toys out of the pram!
10 May 2016 17:38:57
Deego Wolf.
Good point about the freehold having to be a football ground. However these things can change by agreement. The old St George's Hospital on Hyde Park Corner in London had a wonderful location, world class. The lease had a clause saying it always had to be a hospital, otherwise it would revert to the freeholder, the Duke of Westminster. Guess what? The hospital is long gone and on the site is the mega-expensive Lansborough Hotel! In other words, clauses can be broken!
10 May 2016 18:02:50
Deego I don't think that Morgan would wish to involve himself in a development dispute over the Mol. But if he did and appealed to central government to build residential properties and move the ground to an out of town site he would probably win. Appeals like this are overturning Local Authority decisions all over the country. Its all linked to the housing shortage. Mr Morgan has all the people in place and knows exactly what buttons to press.
10 May 2016 19:06:08
Ulf,
I like the analogy of Liverpool and Everton compared to Wolves and Albion. Spot on. About time we got back into the top flight to prove the point. The steps we are taking now are very significant for our future, and are not to be taken lightly. This is a great club. I have much more faith in Morgan to understand this rather than Moxey. Morgan must now act in the best interests of Wolves, rather than for strictly commercial reasons. That may even mean retaining ownership and re-investing. I'd like to see Moxey out, and I would consider hiring someone like the Norwich CEO who honourably resigned this week.
10 May 2016 20:23:24
I agree Deep Throat, I have faith in Morgan, I'd be happy if he stayed. And good shout on the Norwich CEO - the best people make mistakes, take the hit and learn from them, and by that improve and become better than others - perhaps like the Norwich guy has and like Moxey never seems to.
Re Darbo. Sportingbet sponsorship wasn't a big deal because betting is a natural part of football, so it didn't change our identity and lesson our potential (relative to anyone else) . And not like sportingbet are a bookie of last resort, like Moneyshop are a lender to the desperate. So it's not as exploitative, and critically, not at all down market. It wasn't great, we should have taken less money and a better quality name, but not a disaster. I did hate it though because of the colour clash, like Dorito's, spoiled a couple of shirts I desperately wanted.
And those bad colour clashes are another example how Moxey has been completely incompetent with Wolves identity - he just slaps it around like it doesn't matter when actually it's our greatest asset. But I guess no surprise he treats the shirt like it's a cheap made up basketball franchise (he did used to run one) .
Re Wolvesfan03 - I think actually if we'd got promoted and Moneyshop were announced for next season in the Prem, there'd be much more aggro about it not less, because with Prem revenue there'd be no justification at all that we're desperate for the money, and it would be a disaster if we were in Prem as Moneyshop, would destroy Wolverhampton's reputation to the Nation like Wonga did Blackpool, whole region would be on WWFC's back about it, not just the football fans. Who wants to go shopping to, or live in, or move to a place branded to the Nation as a pay-day loan society? Would harm the regions regeneration.