Wolves Rumours Member Posts

 

Deep Throat's Profile

Current Avatar:
No Avatar image uploaded
Correct Score Competition:

Not entered
Correct Score Competition
Flat Out Racing:

Not played Flat Out Racing


No Profile Picture uploaded

Team:


Where from:


Favourite player:


Best team moment:


Interests:


Timezone:




Deep Throat's Posts and Other Poster's Replies To Deep Throat's Posts

 

 

To Deep Throat's last 5 rumours posts

 

To Deep Throat's last 5 banter posts

 

To Deep Throat's last 5 rumour replies

 

To Deep Throat's last 5 banter replies

 

Deep Throat's rumours posts with other poster's replies to Deep Throat's rumours posts

 

25 Apr 2020 13:24:40
Olympiacos about to be banned for match fixing according to a report today. Oh dear, we have unfinished business with them at Molineux. I wonder if a ban would affect this?

Deep Throat

1.) 26 Apr 2020 05:56:11
I saw that. Saying they are likely to be relegated to the Greek second league. I imagine they will also be blanket banned from all comps. With us going straight through.


2.) 26 Apr 2020 19:00:34
Funny old world if we went through to quarter finals that way. Not half as funny as Alan Pardew being saved from relegation, miles from safety, and all because the Dutch league has been declared null and void. Pardew claims he is not taking his bonus for avoiding relegation. Would have paid for a few taxis in Barcelona!


3.) 26 Apr 2020 23:58:29
This is probably academic anyway (as it could all be cancelled) but would it come into force this season then? Surely any punative measures they got would happen for the next tournament? Otherwise it wouldn't be fair on those teams they've already knocked out of the tournament? 🤔.


4.) 27 Apr 2020 08:41:35
Got a point there TBF bullys. Man City wouldn't get immediately kicked out of the CL for their mishaps. We will find out I'm sure. The resumption in August for european tournaments has been banded around a lot.


 

 

07 Jul 2016 16:54:52
today. Don't know if it is just Kenny keeping his hand in, or is it from Robin Li's side?

Real Betis, Aston Villa and Wolves are all interested in signing Chelsea striker Patrick Bamford on loan.

Deep Throat

1.) 07 Jul 2016 18:54:15
Decent player but hopefully we'll not need loan captures soon! This waiting's tough, you could cut the atmosphere with a 'boing boing'. Talking of which, maybe we could buy WBA, flatten the Hawthorns and turn it into a car park for away fans whom we could transport to Molineux by High Speed Tram?


2.) 07 Jul 2016 20:39:57
I'm new to this site guys . Been watching all the posts from the last few days though. Really hoping for good news very soon. FWAW.


 

 

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.

Deep Throat

1.) 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?


2.) 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) .


3.) 09 May 2016 23:46:17
The club is being sold to Bob Laslett, how many more times doi need to tell you?


4.) 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 :-)


5.) 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?


6.) 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.


7.) 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.


8.) 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!


9.) 10 May 2016 12:04:07
@Banbury - any idea when the sale will be announced?


10.) 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.


11.) 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!


12.) 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) .


13.) 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.


14.) 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.


15.) 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.


16.) 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.


17.) 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.


18.) 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.


19.) 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.


20.) 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.


21.) 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!


22.) 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) .


23.) 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.


24.) 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.


25.) 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.


26.) 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!


27.) 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) .


28.) 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.


29.) 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.


30.) 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.


31.) 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.


32.) 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!


33.) 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!


34.) 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.


35.) 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.


36.) 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.


 

 

01 Apr 2016 11:28:07
It has been mentioned elsewhere that Tim Sherwood has been in talks with Steve Morgan. Can only be one reason. Maybe Tim is just playing the field and wants the Derby job?

Deep Throat

1.) 01 Apr 2016 11:56:11
It is April 1st )


2.) 01 Apr 2016 12:49:49
Paul, it was mentioned before 1st April. I know we all want changes at Wolves but Tim could be trying to force Derby's hand by having discussions elsewhere.

I just read on an accounting website that Tata Steel's UK assets are probably zero. That must rule them out as Wolves buyers.


3.) 01 Apr 2016 13:14:08
Id be up for givin Sherwood the job! I don't think he'd take it, but if Morgan is lookin for another coach/ manager that is good news! 👍TaTa won't buy Wolves.


4.) 01 Apr 2016 13:50:06
no one will buy wolves morgan his staying and that's no joke?


5.) 01 Apr 2016 14:32:01
I don't mind him stayin if he changes the manager and gives him financial backin. We could have far worse owners than Morgan? And Definitely better gaffers than JACKETT 👍.


6.) 01 Apr 2016 18:19:51
Morgan must be staying, everything has gone quiet. If, and it's just an if, he has talked with Tim Sherwood, then it can only be good. Any good manager/ coach will tell Morgan he must invest sufficiently in order to challenge next season. Nobody will take the job if there is no guarantee of funds.

I think KJ would improve significantly on this season's performance anyway, as he was very unlucky with injuries. But, a new manager/ coach would be an ambitious statement of intent by Morgan, a new leaf if you like. Time will tell.


7.) 01 Apr 2016 18:29:16
All due respect to Tim Sherwood, I'm sure he is a decent bloke. But absolutely no way, maybe in ten years when he has learned the job. Jackett has lost his way this season trying to make up for the loss of three key players. But he deserves another season with something like a fit squad.


8.) 01 Apr 2016 19:13:21
No he doesn't!


9.) 01 Apr 2016 19:28:50
Let's face it Sherwood turned down the Tesco's up the road probably due to lack of investment so I can't see him coming to us and spending even less and not even having a say on who he buys!
I think he's the type of man manager we need but I can't see him working as an understudy to Thelwell! So it's one or the other I think.


10.) 02 Apr 2016 07:59:40
What has Sherwood done to suggest he would do a better job than jacket right now? And as for Morgan being a good owner! The man is a coward! He wants to keep the club, without having to take any responsibility.


11.) 02 Apr 2016 08:29:44
Who's payin the wages and the upkeep of the club? Bills etc? Morgan! If he decided to walk away without a buyer in place then no more Wolverhampton Wanderers!

{Ed001's Note - that's not true, the club pays them and would continue to exist without him.}


12.) 02 Apr 2016 08:31:29
Sherwood certainly wouldn't be a puppet and mouth piece like the bloke we've got not! He sits down to pee!


13.) 02 Apr 2016 09:02:45
So ed without an owner in what capacity would Wolves exist and what league would we end up in? Crowds would dwindle, payments from the league would be cut, sponsors would be hard to come by! No Zyro no Party! No owner No Wolves!

{Ed001's Note - you clearly do not understand finances. There is little point getting into it, but it is not that simple.}


14.) 02 Apr 2016 09:14:20
Ed u need money to run a football club! If u didn't we could all do It?

{Ed001's Note - you need money to buy the shares and to borrow against to take short term loans out when required. Plenty of clubs prosper under fan ownership.}


15.) 02 Apr 2016 09:39:54
At what level are these clubs under fan ownership playin? That's my point! There's none in the Prem!

{Ed001's Note - because it is too expensive to buy shares.}


16.) 02 Apr 2016 09:52:54
Paul,
Morgan owns the club 100%. It is his current policy to run the club as a profit-making business. The club is paying its bills from cash flow, not from Morgan's hand-outs, and there are no hand-outs. So, the club could survive comfortably without Morgan. Of course, most fans want Morgan to put money into the club to sign players, but he won't.


17.) 02 Apr 2016 10:27:03
Cash flow from ticket sales and merchandise will dwindle wirhout buys as there will be no success on the pitch. Then where will the revenue come from?


18.) 02 Apr 2016 10:29:14
The Wolves are entirely separate business to Morgan's and as far as we are aware is financially stable on its own. If there were any problems the players would be sold to keep the club going before he put money back in. We have no debts and can survive on gate receipts, sponsorship etc. the loans needed to buy players are now not being guaranteed by Morgan that's the difference.
It's just that this year we are not adding to the revenue bought in hence the reason Afobee and Stearman sold and a number going out on loan.


19.) 02 Apr 2016 10:34:54
Wolves can keep going without an owner I know that but in what division will they end up? No quality players as wages won't be there to pay them, half empty ground minimal tv revenue not a good future without an owner?

{Ed001's Note - the owner does not put any money in, the wages are paid by the club. The club does not need owner input for wages or to keep running.}


20.) 02 Apr 2016 10:49:39
We're going round in circles ed! Without money u can't get quality players so no success on the pitch! No success on the pitch means less fans going so less revenue to run the club and pay players! Hence lower league football as that is the budget level u can compete at! Teams who achieve success have rich owners! The others are canon fodder!

{Ed001's Note - if you say so butnyou know nothing about running a business, clearly.}


21.) 02 Apr 2016 10:58:55
Without money in football u achieve nothing! Tell me that's wrong? U need a rich owner if you want success!

{Ed001's Note - if you say so. Pointless having a discussion about this with someone who does not understand how a club finances itself even. Wasting everyone's time with this.}


22.) 02 Apr 2016 12:00:36
Paul, you say Sherwood wouldn't be a puppet, that's exactly what he was at villa. He said he had the final say on players coming in and took the flack, now everyone knows he didn't sign half the players. This is what is happening at wolves, do you really think jacket signed mason? Byrne? And a number of others. The structure at wolves is all wrong at the moment if the manager or head coach can't sign the type of player HE wants, then it doesn't matter whos in charge.


23.) 02 Apr 2016 12:44:19
Paul we are run as a self-sufficient club so if Morgan didn't put money in we could run as a business which we are doing now. Take a look at the only other club run like this down the road and they are 11th in prem. They slag their chairman off but we are probably the only 2 clubs I can think of that run at a profit. Profit is then put back into the club for new players etc so in that respect yes Morgan is screwing us over at the moment but having said that he and Moxey are the ones that have got us running at a profit in the first place. Not defending these two but we could be in a lot worse position than we are.

{Ed001's Note - Arsenal run at a profit, as do Southampton.}


24.) 02 Apr 2016 13:33:54
Southampton sold a lot of their assets Clyne llanaWalcott chamberlain luke shaw plus they've got a billionaire owner! Arsenal have two billionaire owners! Without rich owners your nothin in football but as is bein shown on here people's ambition levels for our team differ! In life in general money talks bull---- walks!

{Ed001's Note - what has the owner's wealth got to do with a club being run for a profit? You really are not getting this at all.}


25.) 02 Apr 2016 13:43:27
If u think football teams can achieve Without a rich owner u r mistaken! Without money in football your just makin the numbers up! In Wolverhampton now so signin off, thanks for the debate ed but we will have to agree to disagree!

{Ed001's Note - again you are missing the point, the clubs make their own money, they do not need the owner to provide it.}


26.) 02 Apr 2016 14:32:51
But my point is without a rich owner u can only get so far?

{Ed001's Note - why? If the club makes a profit you can build on what you have. Barca, Real Madrid and Bayern do not have rich owners as such, they do ok.}


27.) 02 Apr 2016 14:42:46
Isn't Perez who's a billionaire in charge at Real Madrid?

{Ed001's Note - he is the president not the owner.}


28.) 02 Apr 2016 15:00:39
Still a money man! Without Morgan who's the money man?

{Ed001's Note - he is not the money man, he does not input money to buy players etc. The club funds itself.}


29.) 02 Apr 2016 15:44:20
When u borrow off the bank it helps if your guarantor is a billionaire.

{Ed001's Note - this is pointless}


30.) 02 Apr 2016 16:00:28
Agree)


31.) 02 Apr 2016 21:11:00
If we made it to the prem (through the playoffs) without spending any money next season. Why would we need to borrow from anywhere when you get 100 million from sky sports? Why would having a millionaire owner make any difference?


32.) 02 Apr 2016 22:19:50
Jtwolf did u go today? Have u been to many games this season? Play offs? With JACKETT in charge! 😂😂😂.


 

 

14 Mar 2016 13:43:09
Anyone hear that McDonald may be leaving? Word is that he might even go on loan this month before the emergency window closes, with option to purchase at end of season.

That suggests it must be another Championship club. His relationship with Jackett is strained anyway. Great pity if true.

Deep Throat

1.) 14 Mar 2016 13:53:22
Hope that's not true! JACKETT should leave before macdonald, when he does play he's to deep, he wasted in that position as he's the most creative midfielder we've got if used properly! JACKETT hasn't got a clue!


2.) 14 Mar 2016 14:24:11
Paul can understand your frustration but let's face it nothing is going to change till we get new owners, JACKETTS STYLE OF FOOTBALL IF YOU CALL IT FOOTBALL IS TERRIBLE why does he play one up front at home I will never now, and to be so negative against an ordinary B'ham side at home is beyond belief anybody would think we are playing Barcelona, can someone tell him the system he plays is not working and try and play some open attacking football and please can we have some shots at goal, how you are still our coach/ manager what ever you call it with the record you have and style of football entertainment you bring to this football club I will never now, could you do us one favour MR. JACKETT leave our football club you are so BOREING.


3.) 14 Mar 2016 16:03:40
What a statement D. batth glad with wolves shut out against Blues well Danny I don't think the fans am, I am not for sure the football is like watching paint dry.
Would like to now how many shots we have had at goal in say last 10 games can anybody tell me these are the true facts and there as nothing been done to improve it shocking same every week, RUBBISH Jackett as to go, to leave Zero, McDonald and Mason from the kick off the 3 most influential players we have is baffling to say the least, it is obvious the system he plays is not working and with nothing to play for you would of thought Jackett would be more adventurous there are so many things wrong with this team from back to front it's getting really boring that there is nothing being done to correct it.


4.) 14 Mar 2016 16:55:41
To be fair Danny Batth is a defender and therefore is judged mainly on keeping clean sheets. I would expect him to be happy about that.


5.) 14 Mar 2016 17:34:35
KJ isn't happy at Wolves, KJ is having to use players he doesn't want/ doesn't think are ready to start/ start in positions they shouldn't be playing, but is having to because the people above him don't care!, the people above him think Tommy Rowe, siggy, George Saville, Nathan Byrne, Adam le fondre, Matt Doherty.

KJ thinks nath Byrne is better from the bench and isn't ready yet to start at this level and this is being proved with his recent performances and lot of games he's started this season probably barring blues away and Bristol away but the only other options are Tommy Rowe and Connor hunte,

KJ doesn't want siggy in his 18 but because dicko is injuried, and Alf isn't good enough, Mason needs a striker partner (442 which we can't play) and zyro isn't full fit yet and doesn't want to risk is calf which is understandable, and dicko was never replaced and neither afobe he is having to

KJ doesn't want George Saville playing, Dave Edwards is injuried, love him or hate him we miss, him in that attacking role of the 433 were playing right now and yes it's 433 I'll explain more as I go on about that,

KJ doesn't want to be playing this way but because of what the board have let him with& KT he's having to! he wants to playing open passing football, but he can't because the players we've got aren't good enough& and we haven't got the quality defensively or the leadership to be able to keep us organised which we can all see,



as for kmac there has to be certain things in front of him to get the best out of him as well 1. Pacey strong quick striker that can run in behind and score goals which we haven't got because he's out injured and the board didn't want to spend the money, 2. Two winger who can come in side, make runs in behind there full backs but also allows space for him to run into with the ball, who are both out injuried one till next Feb with Graham and the other who's has a recurrence of his injury jame Henry, 3. A back 4 the has quality and quality leadership and organisation in it which we haven't got,


KJ isn't happy with the way he's having to set us to play and isn't happy at the club because of it, but he's not just going to walk from a club like this and with club up for sale it makes it harder on other fronts

I know it's hard to believe but this is truth I'm afraid

And for people wandering I go Compton every day other than a Wednesday because it's there day off ( they have a programme thing to do at home on fitness and that) and Friday ( if it's game on Saturday ) because it's day before a game and Monday if we play Tuesday for same reason but I've got to know very reliable people and that's how I know this

Feel free to comment but I can only comment back from what I get to know and I will let everyone know, got this info over the last week and half hoping for some more this week if not next

I'll keep you all posted

Oh and sorry I haven't posted anything before just thought this was the right time to do it.


6.) 14 Mar 2016 18:35:08
How do you know all that Matt Locke or Matlock? I have seen things on twitter from you. very similar to Tom Doyle. are you Tom Doyle?


7.) 14 Mar 2016 19:06:44
Matt Locke if that's right what you are saying and he didn't have choice with players, then I would have more respect for Jackett if he said it in the open what is happening, but to carry on like this and not say anything if Matt you are right, then I have no time for him because he deserves everything he gets.
I personally think he as lost the plot anyway and looks out is depth and tinkered with side to much.


8.) 14 Mar 2016 19:17:27
Matt Locke. I don't know if your message is guesswork or inside knowledge but it makes good sense to me.

KJ isn't his own man. I think he should man-up or walk. Or become the fall-guy which is where he could be heading.


9.) 14 Mar 2016 20:12:40
Just who is Matt Locke, KJ's alter ego or his brain. What does he know? If it is true and I doubt it KJ should walk.


10.) 14 Mar 2016 20:15:30
ML - finally the truth is starting to trickle out. Please open the flood gates and tell us more as misinformation just exacerbates the situation. Also, I fear for PT's health!


11.) 14 Mar 2016 20:18:34
Would hardly surprise me. He and Kenny don't seem to be seeing eye to eye. I've heard that Hull will look to bring him in for £1.2m if they get promoted. Especially as Huddlestone's contract is up this summer.


12.) 14 Mar 2016 20:38:53
As I've said before JACKETT isn't just a mediocre championship manager, but also a spineless puppet!


13.) 15 Mar 2016 07:36:40
Matt, the points you make all sound true although it may not be what some want to hear . May need another scapegoat .


 

 

 

Deep Throat's banter posts with other poster's replies to Deep Throat's banter posts

 

02 Mar 2020 12:30:37
Daniel Sturridge is suddenly a free agent! After scoring 9 goals in 16 matches in Turkey, he's been released today by mutual consent. Don't know if Wolves would be interested as an emergency back-up striker to Jimenez on a pay per match deal?

Could be handy as we're going well in the PL and Europe.

Deep Throat

{Ed001's Note - he can't sign mate. He was not released before the transfer window shut so cannot sign for an English club.}


1.) 02 Mar 2020 14:32:33
Thanks ED, I didn't know that.

{Ed001's Note - very welcome mate.}


2.) 02 Mar 2020 16:38:46
He's banned for four months anyway.


3.) 02 Mar 2020 16:57:40
All is revealed. Surridge suspended from football until June, for football-related betting offences. That's why he's left his club in Turkey.


4.) 02 Mar 2020 17:46:30
Sturridge now fined £150,000 as well. Wow. He must be a serial offender. That's his career down the pan. Silly boy. Nuno would have kicked him into touch if he'd been at Wolves.

{Ed001's Note - he is not a serial offender, he doesn't even gamble. This is about him giving his brother a tip about a loan move he was meant to be making, which he never made anyway. It is an odd situation, he should have known better as someone who doesn't gamble himself.}


5.) 02 Mar 2020 21:12:46
Ed- definitely is an odd situation mostly because of how lenient it was originally treated! That said apparently they took two previously dismissed charges into account so weather its him making the bet or his milk man it does sound like he's done it a few times (well at least more than the once on the Sevilla move) . What a silly guy, just don't get why multi millionaires risk their careers for this stuff for what to them is buttons!

{Ed001's Note - no mate, it was one incident that they came up with 9 charges from. They dismissed two charges originally, he is now being punished for them after the FA appealed. I am not sure it was leniently treated initially or whether they are now being lenient or if either was harsh. It is an odd situation as the FA act on a totally different level to the legal system. Sturridge has not been proven guilty, they just go on the balance of probability. Sturridge has not placed any bets or been charged with placing any. It is about whether telling his brother about a move is against the rules or not.

Personally I think his brother was an idiot for placing the bet, regardless of why. However, no one should be able to place bets on the transfer market anyway.}


6.) 02 Mar 2020 21:56:34
Oh apologies I misread it and thought that other incidents had come to light! All quite bizarre, like you say I really can't imagine a single good reason for betting on transfers OTHER than with inside info?! Asking for trouble, I bet there's been a shameful amount of ill gotten gains made that way over time!

{Ed001's Note - well exactly. It is difficult to have sympathy with bookies though!}


7.) 03 Mar 2020 09:59:29
Good point Ed about the FA's legal process. A decision is made on the balance of probabilities, like in civil law. It doesn't have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, like in criminal law.

Mind you, if the FA decided to let criminal law apply in footballing matters, certain players would be up on charges of assault and GBH on Adama Traore! He is being targeted constantly. Now the the trick is to pull his arm to dislocate his shoulder. In any criminal court is assault!

{Ed001's Note - there is a lot of that goes on. Salah and Mane get exactly the same treatment. Refs do nothing about it, so it carries on. Yet the likes of Grealish and Zaha only have to have someone breath on them and they get a free kick! It is unreal.}


 

 

01 Feb 2020 14:54:50
The window was not what I expected but I'm happy. Podence looks fab. Campana will probably be Raul's understudy straight away. Kilman is better than Bennett. Sorry to see Bennett go but if he wasn't happy with playing time he would have been even more unhappy in the second part of the season. The kid from Rochdale is one to tuck away until next season, but a great prospect.

PS I wonder what super-fan SQ thinks about the window? I mean the Wolves window not the Baggies.

Deep Throat

1.) 01 Feb 2020 17:24:42
SQ thinks that Fosun should spend £1b on the 1st team, expand Molineux to 100k capacity and live beyond our means and if we don't win the PL in our 1st season and the Champions League the next season, we'd go bust as no-one else could afford to buy the club and cover the debt. As Fosun haven't done this proves that SQ was right and that Fosun are no longer interested. Some people really are dreamers.


 

 

31 Jan 2020 14:30:21
.

I can report another departure tonight.

We're leaving the EU.

Deep Throat

 

 

06 Jan 2020 15:51:37
Bright Enobakhare is in trouble. A punch-up about a lady, over the Christmas break. He's also in hot water for skipping training at his loan club Wigan in protest at not being played.

We all know that Nuno takes a severe view of indiscipline. This could end Bright's career at Wolves. Remember, Nuno gave Afobe and Douglas the chop for indiscipline.

Deep Throat

1.) 06 Jan 2020 18:22:59
Deep Throat has just educated me: I had no idea Afobe was sold for indiscipline; surprised Stoke gave us a profit on him.


2.) 08 Jan 2020 14:02:40
Belfast. I think we had Afobe on loan from Bournemouth before we were promoted, with an option to purchase for £10 mil. This was about what Bournemouth paid us originally after we signed him from Arsenal for peanuts. Afobe (a married man) got himself in the tabloids for inviting a teenage girl to his hotel during an away fixture. The girl's father threatened to duff him up. Obviously Nuno will not tolerate this behaviour. He was sold to Stoke for a quick £2 mil profit. All in all, we did very, very well out of Afobe, lots of profit and a few goals to send us on our way to the PL.


 

 

11 Jul 2016 15:34:48
Sounds like deals for Powell in, and MacDonald out, may be approved in advance by new owner.

The AC Milan deal is delayed but that's not solely a Robin Li deal. He is buying Wolves by himself. The Wolves deal is probably legally done but subject to the FA vetting decision. The decision will be yes, probably announced in a day or two. My guess is a big press conference at the Mol this week.

Deep Throat

1.) 11 Jul 2016 16:07:00
Agree with the Deep Throat.


2.) 11 Jul 2016 16:23:41
Friday at latest I think.


3.) 11 Jul 2016 16:30:28
I hope not until at least Thursday, I'm at Troon for the open!


 

 

 

Deep Throat's rumour replies

 

Click To View This Thread

27 Jun 2020 16:08:48
Paul T, if Donald Trump was a Wolves fan on this website he would describe Dendoncker as Dendonkey for sure, the worst Wolves player ever in the history of the world, a lowlife loser!

Deep Throat

 

 

Click To View This Thread

27 Jun 2020 14:36:20
Dendoncker man of the match. A very underrated player. Traore once was too.

Deep Throat

 

 

Click To View This Thread

27 Jun 2020 11:26:49
Thanks Ed002.
Sad to see Jordan Graham leaving. He was unlucky with injuries etc and now a fully-fit Graham is no longer good enough for new Wolves. A move to the Championship next season with his former club Villa might suit.

Deep Throat

 

 

Click To View This Thread

27 Jun 2020 11:08:10
Traore has been developing into a world-class player before our very eyes. Look how he can play against the likes of Liverpool and Man City. This boy can perform against anyone and he's fearless.

Deep Throat

 

 

Click To View This Thread

27 Jun 2020 11:05:18
This may be click-bate fake news, but has anyone seen reports that Costa is on the list submitted to the PL of players to be retained by Wolves? I quote from Football Insider:

". the Premier League’s official retained list released in the last 24 hours names Costa among the senior professionals staying on at Wolves"

I can't see how this is true, unless Leeds United has found a legal loop hole to avoid paying £15mil for Costa. A more extreme view is that Traore is being sold and Nuno wants Costa back. Probably complete B/ S. Even if Traore was leaving Nuno would have better options to bring in than Costa.

Deep Throat

{Ed002's Note - You have misunderstood it. The retained list reflects the players contracted to the club at this time and those for which agreements have been agreed to be sold in the summer wil stay on the list until the transfer window opens and they can be registered for their new club. Perhaps of more importance is the Wolves released list - those players leaving on a free: Jordan Graham, William Connor, Phil Ofosu-Ayeh, Callum Thompson and Ming-Yang Yang.}


 

 

 

Deep Throat's banter replies

 

Click To View This Thread

27 Jun 2020 11:14:01
Jas - I would say the greatest achievement would be the Wolves one simply because the other achievements are far, far more expected of those teams. I personally think we might finish 5th and hopefully qualify for CL that way if the City ban is upheld. If we did I would I would still expect us to win the EL just to make doubly sure of the CL next season!

Deep Throat

 

 

Click To View This Thread

26 Jun 2020 13:30:25
Keep up the posts Phil. People do read them even when unable to reply.

Deep Throat

 

 

Click To View This Thread

26 Jun 2020 13:29:06
Hi Ed,

Fabulous to see Jimenez deservedly in the list. He's amongst great company. Who'd have though a few years ago that a Wolves player would be held in such esteemed regard.

I imagine that Traore would easily make a top ten wingers list.

Deep Throat

{Ed001's Note - Jimenez has been outstanding for a while, he fully deserves his place.}


 

 

Click To View This Thread

22 Jun 2020 16:18:24
Nuno has played a blinder in selling players, despite widespread criticism from fans:

Costa and Cav - decent players but not good enough for new Wolves.

Douglas and Afobe. Ditto, but also behavioural problems.

Plus, we've turned a nice profit on these guys as well.

Deep Throat

 

 

Click To View This Thread

05 Jun 2020 16:51:34
I'm interested in knowing what work you do Jas, as you're working at various football grounds. Nice work!

Deep Throat