Current Avatar:
No Avatar image uploaded
No Avatar image uploaded
Wolves Rumours Member Posts
FirstThePoints's Profile
FirstThePoints's Posts and Other Poster's Replies To FirstThePoints's Posts
To FirstThePoints's last 5 rumours posts
To FirstThePoints's last 5 banter posts
To FirstThePoints's last 5 rumour replies
To FirstThePoints's last 5 banter replies
FirstThePoints's rumours posts with other poster's replies to FirstThePoints's rumours posts
01 Feb 2026 13:50:51
JSL to Palace £43 million.
Wolves make a low ball offer to Soton for Adam Armstrong.
1.) 01 Feb 2026 15:13:08
Adam Armstrong, (same as Che Adam), looks on the face of it like he would be a very sensible signing.
From his record it looks like he is not quite good enough for Prem but is very good in the Championship.
If the fee is £7m it is a good price.
However he is allegedly on £60k per week. - hence I imagine Southampton's willingness to let him go for what seems a modest sum as their parachute payments tail off.
But what sort of contract will Wolves be able to offer?
If he as a 28 year old and in his prime years, not unnaturally, wants to retain if not improve his £60k a week that would seem far more than the club can afford especially if it is over a 3+ year period when the parachute payments will be long gone.
Note ironically if you believe Wolves will be promoted then as shown Armstrong would have to be sold as he is not good enough for Prem.
Thus regardless of if Wolves go up or not Wolves will want to sell him in a year or so and like Southampton will have to take a cut price deal to move him on to someone willing to take on what is basically a non Championship level contract i.e.
£60k + per week.
Who does that - well today obviously a team that is desperate to win the Champ and has short term money i.e. a team with parachute payments?
Sadly though in two years time he will be 30 and may not be too easy to shift.
In conclusion a good signing but Wolves need to be careful to structure any contract offered.
Maybe offer him the money he wants and on a long term contract, 5 years, but with wages linked after the first year to the club's status i.e. unless they go up the wages drop to match the reality of the clubs status.?
or more - perhaps another side with a v shoet term view believing they can be promoted - probably another side with parachute patments?
2.) 01 Feb 2026 15:36:10
So who exactly is signing the players on behalf of Palace?
Matt Hobbs?
Why would JSL move to a club where the manager is leaving at the end of the season?
What if JSL doesn't fit into the next managers plans like Kobbie Mainoo didn't fit Amorim plan.
Strange decision, but based on his performances for us this season, good riddance.
3.) 01 Feb 2026 15:37:02
Apologies clearly the last sentence was part of a draft that should have been deleted.
4.) 01 Feb 2026 15:56:52
I'm sure we put a bid in for him when Southampton got relegated a few seasons ago and he turned us down. That was at the start of our decline. I wonder why he's changed his mind. Probably as TFIOG says, he knows he isn't good enough for the Premier League but one of the better Championship players, plus the rumoured high wages don't harm things.
Fosun have turned us into a laughing stock.
If Angel Gomes does join us, no doubt he'll make the move permanent in the summer and be sold the next day or so for a profit.
5.) 01 Feb 2026 16:07:36
The answer to your question, Good is £££.
6.) 01 Feb 2026 16:31:11
Angel Gomes would also appear to be an excellent signing although once again wages are very high .
Could this however actually be a plan?
Seems hard to envisage with Fosun, (i, e, any plan!), but sign players who are more than capable for the Champ using the excess cash from the disposal program that I detailed a week or so ago to fund the fees and "high" wages in a genuinely serious attempt to gain promotion?
It is clearly logical and rational!
7.) 01 Feb 2026 17:06:55
Adam Armstrong certainly fits that category Future, but Gomes is a recent England international with eyes on a place at the World Cup this summer and then future squads. He will sign, play well until the end of the season and put himself in the shop window. However there is no chance that he starts next season with us as Fosun will sell him for a handsome profit.
If they do as you suggest, then happy days, but given their recent shenanigans, I don't see it.
8.) 01 Feb 2026 17:46:52
Armstrong. Would be a good signing but will require our midfield to change their ways. He was fastest player in Prem when he last played there and likes ball played early and over the back line for him to run onto.
Age is a bit of an issue as he is 29 in mid February.
9.) 01 Feb 2026 18:56:48
Hopefully the JSL saga will conclude as we want with £43m+ coming in.
Armstrong and/or Che Adams, both tried and failed strikers and yet to light up their respective teams, if (and it’s a big if) we muster a strong enough squad to be challenging next year, both will be jettisoned because simply not good enough for the premier league!
Elijah Adebayo known to Rob Edwards would be a far better shout. Yes he’s had a bad knee injury and been out for 12 months, but would be ready for the new season. Younger than Armstrong and Adams, quick with an eye for goal, did extremely well in the final run in Luton’s relegation. Forward line of Fer Lopez - Adebayo - Mateus Mane, should see us close to the top of Championship League
10.) 01 Feb 2026 20:52:46
What's wrong with selling players for a handsome profit, Good? The scenario we are much more used to is offloading players for a big loss. Fabio, Guedes being recent examples which eclipse the odd decent profit made such as for Cunha and hopefully Larsen.
11.) 01 Feb 2026 22:57:24
What's wrong with selling players for a handsome profit you ask? Nothing if said profit is used to maintain or strengthen the squad like Brentford, Bournemouth and Brighton do. But our recent history suggests we waste the money.
In recent years we've made huge profits on: Jota, Neves, Nunes, Kilman, Ait Nouri, Neto and Cunha. Have the club used that money wisely? One look at the table and the current squad gives us a very clear answer.
12.) 02 Feb 2026 04:18:22
Indeed Good but that's a different point to the one you seemed to be making. We all know our recruitment ability has taken an absolute nosedive in recent seasons.
13.) 02 Feb 2026 08:38:14
Old Wulf. The point I'm making is this. Wolves have over the last 3 seasons have sold on players for huge profits without reinvesting the money back into the playing squad to bring in players of either the same quality of players sold or potential. The Angel Gomes deal will be no different.
The club will buy him for the reported £7m and sell him almost immediately for double that. They will then purchase 1 inferior player for a fraction of the price and pocket the change.
Let's look at the last transfer window.
We sold Cunha and Ait Nouri for a total of approx £100m and replaced them with Moller Wolfe, Tchatchoua, Arias, Lopez and Tolu for £80m.
Now some might say that bringing in 5 players to replace 2 makes the squad better and stronger but does having 5 mediocre players adequately replace 2 proven performers?
FirstThePoints's banter posts with other poster's replies to FirstThePoints's banter posts
07 Feb 2026 15:53:59
As per my post on 05/02 I have left the stadium.
05 Feb 2026 16:58:11
They didn’t want to sell the club but they wanted their money back so they sold any player they could to bring in the cash while retaining control of the club.
If they were to sell the club today how much would it be worth?
The protests must have affected them as they removed Jeff as a token gesture and replaced him with Nathan.
Protests need to be ramped up and if the Chelsea game goes the same way as it did last season this could see the stadium emptying before the final whistle.
First The Points
1.) 06 Feb 2026 08:30:06
Makes you wonder what will happen to any parachute money!
23 Jan 2026 13:30:17
Did anyone actually see Jeff leave the building?
Who is instructing/advising Nathan?
First The Points
1.) 23 Jan 2026 19:12:43
Why have we not heard from Nathan?
2.) 23 Jan 2026 22:38:42
Well we all know how much Jeff is a fan of sci fi, he told us in one of his car crash interviews so my theory is at the end of the season Nathan will call a press conference then take off a mask and it’s Jeff all along underneath like the old program V ??
09 Jan 2026 16:31:10
Wolves have refused to send Shrewsbury extra tickets for the FA Cup game as the extra revenue wouldn’t cover the operating costs.
Another great PR stunt by the club keeping seats empty and locking paying fans out.
1.) 09 Jan 2026 19:47:55
Can you give more detail, I can’t read the full article but from what I do see it seems like they were offered more initially but took the lower amount. Now have changes their mind but because it’s in the stan cull is not Steve bull the operating cost would outweigh what shrews make.
Seems like the fault of Shrewsbury owners not wolves, at least that’s what the comments I’ve seen say. Interested why you think it’s wolves fault.
2.) 09 Jan 2026 21:34:06
Because it’s Wolves stadium Goatmark1 and the opposition are asking for tickets for the game but we can’t afford to let them in so the seats remain empty?
An odd position for a club that has been in the PL for eight years with all its riches paying players huge salaries but can’t allow fans into the stadium as the cost of doing so is prohibitive.
3.) 09 Jan 2026 23:23:35
But I don’t think that’s the case, it’s not about the cost to us from what I see. If they had taken the higher amount of tickets first of all they would be in the Steve bull stand and so the operation costs would be fine. It’s the fact they wanted less so we put them in the stan cullis then they changed their minds but to add more fans to the stan cullis would affect the profit they take due to the layout and increased operation costs. Incidentally they are also complaining that we priced the tickets at £10 (funnily enough too low) which again means they aren’t taking as much, they even said they make more from a league game.
Btw i'm not trying to cause arguments First just trying to get the facts right to blame the right people, of course I could be reading the situation wrong.
4.) 09 Jan 2026 23:57:49
Ok I might have been wrong about which stand and the reason behind why the operation costs are more but I think it still affects the profit shrews take. Either way it still doesn’t seem it’s our fault to me.
5.) 10 Jan 2026 08:58:20
Havnt seen anything about the ticket allocation to Shrews fans other than they're being housed in the lower steve bull. Shrewsbury had a waiting list for tickets.
Of course the match is also on TV if you've the appropriate subscriptions.
£10 does seem a low price admittedly.
08 Jan 2026 12:26:58
After 20 games played we were 12 points adrift of Nottingham Forest in 17th place and PL safety.
After 21 games played we are 14 points adrift of Nottingham Forest in 17th place.
The players improvement in endeavour and attitude is not yet reflected in the league table.
1.) 08 Jan 2026 13:42:29
In other words, we drew and they won in our respective last matches. Apologies, FTP.
2.) 08 Jan 2026 15:45:51
Yes Old Wulf that is correct.
If you take our points accumulation over the last six games compared to Forest we have 5 points and they have 6 so although we have improved and the players are now playing for the shirt we have worryingly not gained any ground on our competitors but have fallen further behind.
3.) 08 Jan 2026 15:44:36
After 17 games we were 16 points adrift of Nottingham forests in 17th. Showing the players improvement in endeavour and attitude is clearly reflected in the league table. We had 2 points 3 games ago, we now have 7.
What a pointless comment designed to shed a negative light on what the team have achieved in recent weeks. It’s clear to see how the team has improved under RE not just by looking at the results. It seems some people just want to make it look like nothings changed. What a joke.
4.) 08 Jan 2026 17:33:50
In 2026, Wolves have 4 points and Forest only have 3.
Statistics can be manipulated to fit whatever objective you're trying to find.
5.) 08 Jan 2026 17:43:19
We have to keep going and hope someone else can get dragged in later in the season,
6.) 08 Jan 2026 17:58:09
Sorry but I feel like I'm reading a different thread to everyone else here?! First has simply pointed out that despite an upturn in perfromances/effort we are however still further a drift. What part of that is incorrect or maniplualtated exactly?! I know he's been previously negative but let's try and judge each post on its merit shall we because what then is negative (or even inrorrect) about 'The players improvement in endeavour and attitude is not yet reflected in the league table'?!
Yes its nice that we've turned a corner and credit to the team/RE for it but surely people are still allowed to point out the realities of our predicament?! I'm afraid the reality (however you spin/manipulate the data) is we look more likely to go down today than we did last week.
The Forest result agaisnt WHU has put all three teams in the zone in very real danger, that's just facts I'm afraid! Don't believe me then ask a WHU fan ?
7.) 08 Jan 2026 19:42:36
Because it’s manipulation of the stats BB, as my post points out over a longer timeframe we are in fact better off. Using one game as an example isn’t a true reflection. As I said we now have 5 more points than we did 3 games ago which shows vast improvement even if we did only have 2 points. To say it’s not reflected in the table is misleading. As goodwhileitlasted points out we have a point more than them over the last three games.
Ultimately it’s pointless making the comparison and all it does is cast a negative light on things. The only thing that’s relevant is that we have got more points in the last 3 games than we had over the previous 18.
I’m all for people pointing out the way they view the predicament but I think we all get it by now, what’s the point in constantly reminding everyone other than to put a downer on what has been a good three games. Yes staying up is unlikely but why try kill the hope that some still have?
8.) 08 Jan 2026 20:36:36
A positive stat for you then Goatmark1 is that if we match Brentford’s results for the rest of the season we will finish on 26 points less than them.
9.) 08 Jan 2026 21:49:06
Apparently 6 out of 10 fans don’t believe in statistics ?
10.) 08 Jan 2026 22:39:19
99% of statistics are only true 50% of the time 100% true that or is it 90% true? I’m only 40% sure
??
11.) 08 Jan 2026 23:16:53
Let hope they win the rest of their games then firstthepoints. But yes well done we are 26points behind Brentford yet another pointless stat.
Tbh I think it’s more likely that we need to catch Leeds, whatever the case all we can do it try win as many as possible and hope others around us lose as many as possible. Much like the transfer thread the other day looking at what other teams are doing just adds to the disappointment. We can only try to control our own destiny
12.) 09 Jan 2026 09:26:09
Pointless thread.?
FirstThePoints's rumour replies
02 Feb 2026 10:56:29
If Carlsberg did January transfer windows Rated.
Hope the season ticket prices in the championship reflect the fact that we’ve sold millions of pounds worth of international players in previous windows and replaced them with Che Adams.
19 Dec 2025 12:31:15
Mateus Fernandez-Pardo is going to have his work cut out then if the internet rumours are true regarding outgoings.
First The Points
FirstThePoints's banter replies
18 Jan 2026 11:43:31
GWIL I think The Futures point is that while we did have the best time in our recent history under Fosun the cost could be that we may not have a club to support at all if the mis-management continues into the next couple of seasons.
Future is asking if a couple of seasons as best of the rest is worth losing the club for.
15 Jan 2026 17:06:58
Or did Fosun stab Mendes in the back by deviating from their original plans to progress the club into a Champions League team with a world class stadium and forcing out many other staff members who had the same ambitions?
First The Points
09 Jan 2026 21:34:06
Because it’s Wolves stadium Goatmark1 and the opposition are asking for tickets for the game but we can’t afford to let them in so the seats remain empty?
An odd position for a club that has been in the PL for eight years with all its riches paying players huge salaries but can’t allow fans into the stadium as the cost of doing so is prohibitive.
08 Jan 2026 20:36:36
A positive stat for you then Goatmark1 is that if we match Brentford’s results for the rest of the season we will finish on 26 points less than them.
08 Jan 2026 15:45:51
Yes Old Wulf that is correct.
If you take our points accumulation over the last six games compared to Forest we have 5 points and they have 6 so although we have improved and the players are now playing for the shirt we have worryingly not gained any ground on our competitors but have fallen further behind.