fucking hate that psr actively encourages selling your academy lads.
should do the exact opposite imo, needs to encourage teams developing their own talent rather than spending big money on players. like i like rutter a lot, but any rule that incentivises us to sell the academy boy gray over him as a big money signing is fucking shite
whats more sustainable than having a team you've brought through from age 7?
is it really PSR related? Someone offers you £40m for an 18 year old and you're in the championship, surely any team is taking it? Even one as big as Leeds.
We had to sell someone to stay with in psr rules so yes.
I know it's mad money, but football would be miles better if teams could actually keep their best players instead of the top 12-15 teams in the world hoovering up every talented player the second they have a decent half a season. But it's the way the game has been going for decades. The big English clubs outside of the top 6 are probably the very last teams to be affected (and we've definitely been on the other side of it a lot, whether its poaching joe gelhardt to never play him or exploiting the concetration of wealth in the premier league to get guys from the dutch champions), but it's still shit.
Our reward for developing a good player should be getting to have a good player, not having him whipped away from us in the name of profit when he's barely old enough to drink.
It's really gone mad the last 15 years.
Look at the benches of when Fergie won his league titles. The downgrades in players from starting XI to the bench was usually pretty noticeable in all but one or two positions. Even Chelsea's titles under Mou were similar.
Nowadays the top teams have 20+ players all of who are good enough to start and play. It's why we see such record points in the PL. Players like Juninho would never have played for Boro in today's game, or at most he'd be there a season before having a £120m offer put in for him.
It's a bit ridiculous. But because one team (City) started doing it, the rest have to follow to compete on all fronts.
So if PSR wasn't a issue and someone offered £40m to a championship club for an 18 year old untested at the top level, you honestly think it would be rejected? You're preaching to a Southampton about losing your young players to big clubs by the way. Something that used to happen long before PSR was invented.
No one's preaching mate you asked a question and he gave you the correct answer. Context absolutely matters in this situation. Southampton's sales in the past were not as a result of being hamstrung by rules designed to make football more sustainable if clubs owners decide to stop putting money in. However as a result clubs all around the country clubs both big and small have to use their homegrown talent as 'sacrificial lambs' to help financial problems that predate even before Archie kicked a ball professionally for Leeds.
I think the point is PSR Is clearly driving a trend here (see Anderson leaving Newcastle, see Chelsea looking to sell their academy players)
The reason PSR specifically does it is because it places strict limits around transfers in and out of- academy stars have almost no amortisation to deduct so are pure profit.
If faced with a choice of selling your academy star for 40m or someone you bought two years ago for 40m, in PSR terms the academy star is better for the books
Academy players should be treated like assets. Grays value has clearly been listed at 40 million. Instead of having to sell him to get that 40 million in cash, his value as a player should offset against existing costs.
It’s purely psr related, we’ve just got the biggest sponsorship deal in championship history, we’re fine for money, Gray didn’t even ‘want’ to leave.
But we can’t turn down £40m pure profit on psr.
Losing Archie is grim, and I honestly don't think he would've left this summer if we hadn't needed to make up money for FFP (not that that means the majority of Leeds fans aren't disgusted with the 49ers for doing the deal), **but** if you take Archie leaving as an unfortunate given, then bringing in £30m and Joe Rodon (who was in our top three performers last season imo) is as good a deal as we could've gotten, especially given clubs knew we needed to do a deal fast
The fact we have gotten Rodon is what is smoothing this over for me.
I would have thought Spurs would have wanted more than 10m for Rodon, especially given his performance, and 40m for a 19 year old is good even though it hurts.
This also sets us up nicely for defence and midfield if Struijk is back fit, Rodon and Struijk at the back, and Ampadu going into midfield alongside Gruev is solid.
Also, I'm more pissed off with teams like Leicester, Forest, and Everton breaking rules with a slap on the wrist while we got relegated and have had to sell our top youngster to make sure we don't break the same rules they have. Fucking weak from the EFL and PL, if teams break the rules fucking get at them, same for City, they brake the rules yet it is teams like us and Burnley paying the price.
The Gray’s asked for a release clause to be included in his new deal that he signed earlier in the year so it’s not like he was totally against leaving this summer with us failing to get promotion
Personally it seems a bit fishy that that has only come to light since the 49ers took loads of stick for selling him, when the message from every reporter until that point, as well as the ITK that broke the story literally days before anyone else, is that Archie didn't want to go, the family have fallen out with the board, and the club were making him leave for FFP reasons
If there was even a release clause, it's no coincidence it was only leaked at this time, and doesn't mean Archie was wanting to leave this summer, just that he (or his agent) didn't want to rule it out six months ago
I give Parang credit for not throwing him under the bus a couple weeks ago when he asked if he would sell Archie. He could of easily told the reporter that he would never sell Archie but he may have to do it cause the only way he would sign a new contract was if there was a release clause added
Hmmmm maybe, I’ve interpreted that as Gray not being happy about going to Brentford though, if he had a release clause then we had to negotiate with Brentford if they were triggering it.
Also, the rumours from a couple weeks ago was that Dortmund were interested and Archie was open to that move, which isn’t something you’d say if you didn’t want to leave at all.
This FFP thing doesn’t add up either, if we had to sell for FFP then why was the deal not completed yesterday before the deadline for PSR?
To me having a release clause makes sense for both parties, it guarantees we get a good fee for him rather than clubs low balling us and it means Archie can move to a top club if they trigger the clause rather than us demanding silly money for him and refusing to sell
Yeah, it does seem coincidental. But then was the not wanting to go and falling out due to not wanting to go to Brentford. When the desired club like Spurs got involved it was happy days.
Again, odd the ITKers haven't commented on his unhappiness to go to Spurs, just the initial forced to go when Brentford were in pole position.
If you believe that then you don't use WACCOE, if you know who to follow then you can find most stories 24 hours before they're anywhere else
The Archie story was on there the day before it reported by any outlet, as well as the most likely club being Brentford (which it was until Tottenham cranked up their offer yesterday)
They might think I’m making it up but there’s quite a few people saying it now on Twitter, makes sense from there point of view as he’s obviously a talented player who will want to play for bigger clubs and no release clause would mean we could demand a fee that nobody would pay
Two things can be true. It’s a great deal for the club for a player who’s only just played his first season of football. But, what’s the point of football if you can’t even get emotionally attached to an academy product for more than a season.
PSR, FFP, parachute payments, prem-efl financial package; it’s all broken if your academy product is the ‘sacrificial lamb’ to help with financial issues that even predate him.
Best of luck Archie 🫡
There aren't even any financial issues really, like we're not going to go into admin if we don't sell Gray, this is just compliance with some arbitrary level set by the FA. It's bullshit.
Happy with the Rodon side, happy with a decent amount of money coming into the club, happy to see Brentford get told to feck off the little opportunistic gits, but sad to see Archie go at such a young point and only having one season played out of position.
A shame that Leeds are being forced to sell their best youth prospect for decades to comply with FFP, when so many clubs both at the top and bottom of the Premier League have knowingly broken the rules and only gotten a slap on the wrist to show for it (we all know who they are 🦊🍬🔵🌳🗡)
You never want to have to sell your up and coming talent but unfortunately that's not the world we live in.
By staying with us he would have guaranteed being in the starting line up. Going to Spurs I am not sure how he would fit in and if he would spend a season or two in their youth squad before perhaps getting to play first team football.
I would hate for him to end up being another Kalvin and getting the big money but not actually playing.
From our point of view it sucks to lose him but if we get £40m and only spend £10m getting Rodon then its not bad at all.
> I would hate for him to end up being another Kalvin and getting the big money but not actually playing.
This. I fear this move could tank his career. Riding the bench at Spurs and/or going through loan hell won't be good for his development. At Leeds he was starting every match in the championship, in a team challenging promotion. Young players going to a big PL club too early often doesn't end well.
How funny would it be if Spurs immediately loan him back to Leeds for 1 season?
I'll hugely miss Archie and would have loved to see him grow with us. But realistically as soon as we stayed down it wasn't going to happen that way and we've seen so many of our young academy products leave over my time supporting the club that I'm kinda desensitised to it now and saw it coming. I'm glad he's moving to a club like Spurs and not a Bournemouth or Brentford, for his career prospects. He's good enough IMO, even if he ends up on loan somewhere for a year or two.
But if I'm 8/10 sad about losing Archie, I'm 10/10 delighted that Rodon is our player, genuinely made up. He was so pivotal to us last season and I really thought he was gone for good, so to have him back is fantastic and probably makes this a net positive overall. I wonder if we're still in for Skipp too?
Obviously I don't wanna see him go, but like, if he is gonna go and it has to be now, it probably doesn't get any better for us outside of this deal, desperate to see Rodon in a Leeds shirt again.
Just hope Spurs don't destroy him, I want the lad to go and do well, even if it means we miss out..
Is this the same thing as as Brentford deal? Meeting the release clause fee allows the team to speak with the player and perform a medical but it doesn't mean the deal will go through.
I hope🥲
I'm gonna hold out until I see an official statement from the club.
I'll be pleasantly surprised if we held on to Archie but our track record for this stuff is shocking.
fucking hate that psr actively encourages selling your academy lads. should do the exact opposite imo, needs to encourage teams developing their own talent rather than spending big money on players. like i like rutter a lot, but any rule that incentivises us to sell the academy boy gray over him as a big money signing is fucking shite whats more sustainable than having a team you've brought through from age 7?
is it really PSR related? Someone offers you £40m for an 18 year old and you're in the championship, surely any team is taking it? Even one as big as Leeds.
We had to sell someone to stay with in psr rules so yes. I know it's mad money, but football would be miles better if teams could actually keep their best players instead of the top 12-15 teams in the world hoovering up every talented player the second they have a decent half a season. But it's the way the game has been going for decades. The big English clubs outside of the top 6 are probably the very last teams to be affected (and we've definitely been on the other side of it a lot, whether its poaching joe gelhardt to never play him or exploiting the concetration of wealth in the premier league to get guys from the dutch champions), but it's still shit. Our reward for developing a good player should be getting to have a good player, not having him whipped away from us in the name of profit when he's barely old enough to drink.
It's really gone mad the last 15 years. Look at the benches of when Fergie won his league titles. The downgrades in players from starting XI to the bench was usually pretty noticeable in all but one or two positions. Even Chelsea's titles under Mou were similar. Nowadays the top teams have 20+ players all of who are good enough to start and play. It's why we see such record points in the PL. Players like Juninho would never have played for Boro in today's game, or at most he'd be there a season before having a £120m offer put in for him. It's a bit ridiculous. But because one team (City) started doing it, the rest have to follow to compete on all fronts.
So if PSR wasn't a issue and someone offered £40m to a championship club for an 18 year old untested at the top level, you honestly think it would be rejected? You're preaching to a Southampton about losing your young players to big clubs by the way. Something that used to happen long before PSR was invented.
No one's preaching mate you asked a question and he gave you the correct answer. Context absolutely matters in this situation. Southampton's sales in the past were not as a result of being hamstrung by rules designed to make football more sustainable if clubs owners decide to stop putting money in. However as a result clubs all around the country clubs both big and small have to use their homegrown talent as 'sacrificial lambs' to help financial problems that predate even before Archie kicked a ball professionally for Leeds.
I think the point is PSR Is clearly driving a trend here (see Anderson leaving Newcastle, see Chelsea looking to sell their academy players) The reason PSR specifically does it is because it places strict limits around transfers in and out of- academy stars have almost no amortisation to deduct so are pure profit. If faced with a choice of selling your academy star for 40m or someone you bought two years ago for 40m, in PSR terms the academy star is better for the books
Academy players should be treated like assets. Grays value has clearly been listed at 40 million. Instead of having to sell him to get that 40 million in cash, his value as a player should offset against existing costs.
It’s purely psr related, we’ve just got the biggest sponsorship deal in championship history, we’re fine for money, Gray didn’t even ‘want’ to leave. But we can’t turn down £40m pure profit on psr.
Everything since bielsa left has been shite
And everything before lmao
Back to factory settings for Leeds then
Losing Archie is grim, and I honestly don't think he would've left this summer if we hadn't needed to make up money for FFP (not that that means the majority of Leeds fans aren't disgusted with the 49ers for doing the deal), **but** if you take Archie leaving as an unfortunate given, then bringing in £30m and Joe Rodon (who was in our top three performers last season imo) is as good a deal as we could've gotten, especially given clubs knew we needed to do a deal fast
The fact we have gotten Rodon is what is smoothing this over for me. I would have thought Spurs would have wanted more than 10m for Rodon, especially given his performance, and 40m for a 19 year old is good even though it hurts. This also sets us up nicely for defence and midfield if Struijk is back fit, Rodon and Struijk at the back, and Ampadu going into midfield alongside Gruev is solid. Also, I'm more pissed off with teams like Leicester, Forest, and Everton breaking rules with a slap on the wrist while we got relegated and have had to sell our top youngster to make sure we don't break the same rules they have. Fucking weak from the EFL and PL, if teams break the rules fucking get at them, same for City, they brake the rules yet it is teams like us and Burnley paying the price.
18
How can you blame Leicester, Forest and Everton? They're the victims /s
Don't know a single City fan saying we're victims, what are you on about?
The Gray’s asked for a release clause to be included in his new deal that he signed earlier in the year so it’s not like he was totally against leaving this summer with us failing to get promotion
Personally it seems a bit fishy that that has only come to light since the 49ers took loads of stick for selling him, when the message from every reporter until that point, as well as the ITK that broke the story literally days before anyone else, is that Archie didn't want to go, the family have fallen out with the board, and the club were making him leave for FFP reasons If there was even a release clause, it's no coincidence it was only leaked at this time, and doesn't mean Archie was wanting to leave this summer, just that he (or his agent) didn't want to rule it out six months ago
I give Parang credit for not throwing him under the bus a couple weeks ago when he asked if he would sell Archie. He could of easily told the reporter that he would never sell Archie but he may have to do it cause the only way he would sign a new contract was if there was a release clause added
Hmmmm maybe, I’ve interpreted that as Gray not being happy about going to Brentford though, if he had a release clause then we had to negotiate with Brentford if they were triggering it. Also, the rumours from a couple weeks ago was that Dortmund were interested and Archie was open to that move, which isn’t something you’d say if you didn’t want to leave at all. This FFP thing doesn’t add up either, if we had to sell for FFP then why was the deal not completed yesterday before the deadline for PSR? To me having a release clause makes sense for both parties, it guarantees we get a good fee for him rather than clubs low balling us and it means Archie can move to a top club if they trigger the clause rather than us demanding silly money for him and refusing to sell
Yeah, it does seem coincidental. But then was the not wanting to go and falling out due to not wanting to go to Brentford. When the desired club like Spurs got involved it was happy days. Again, odd the ITKers haven't commented on his unhappiness to go to Spurs, just the initial forced to go when Brentford were in pole position.
Waccoe is not itk
If you believe that then you don't use WACCOE, if you know who to follow then you can find most stories 24 hours before they're anywhere else The Archie story was on there the day before it reported by any outlet, as well as the most likely club being Brentford (which it was until Tottenham cranked up their offer yesterday)
Not sure why you are downvoted for this. Imagine the outrage if a certain other player we have who is likely to be sold did it lmao
They might think I’m making it up but there’s quite a few people saying it now on Twitter, makes sense from there point of view as he’s obviously a talented player who will want to play for bigger clubs and no release clause would mean we could demand a fee that nobody would pay
What's most sad about this is that Archie will probably never play for Leeds again now
He'll come back age 35 to help with the League 1 promotion push
\*promotion **TO** League 1
And Spurs too, probably.
Two things can be true. It’s a great deal for the club for a player who’s only just played his first season of football. But, what’s the point of football if you can’t even get emotionally attached to an academy product for more than a season. PSR, FFP, parachute payments, prem-efl financial package; it’s all broken if your academy product is the ‘sacrificial lamb’ to help with financial issues that even predate him. Best of luck Archie 🫡
Very well said mate
Spot on.
There aren't even any financial issues really, like we're not going to go into admin if we don't sell Gray, this is just compliance with some arbitrary level set by the FA. It's bullshit.
Happy with the Rodon side, happy with a decent amount of money coming into the club, happy to see Brentford get told to feck off the little opportunistic gits, but sad to see Archie go at such a young point and only having one season played out of position.
A shame that Leeds are being forced to sell their best youth prospect for decades to comply with FFP, when so many clubs both at the top and bottom of the Premier League have knowingly broken the rules and only gotten a slap on the wrist to show for it (we all know who they are 🦊🍬🔵🌳🗡)
Does Gray not want first team football? That’s a shit move at this stage in his career and without a loan will only go the same way as Clarke did.
Seems like he doesn't, will sit the bench this year. Then will get loaned out next year.
You never want to have to sell your up and coming talent but unfortunately that's not the world we live in. By staying with us he would have guaranteed being in the starting line up. Going to Spurs I am not sure how he would fit in and if he would spend a season or two in their youth squad before perhaps getting to play first team football. I would hate for him to end up being another Kalvin and getting the big money but not actually playing. From our point of view it sucks to lose him but if we get £40m and only spend £10m getting Rodon then its not bad at all.
> I would hate for him to end up being another Kalvin and getting the big money but not actually playing. This. I fear this move could tank his career. Riding the bench at Spurs and/or going through loan hell won't be good for his development. At Leeds he was starting every match in the championship, in a team challenging promotion. Young players going to a big PL club too early often doesn't end well. How funny would it be if Spurs immediately loan him back to Leeds for 1 season?
I'll hugely miss Archie and would have loved to see him grow with us. But realistically as soon as we stayed down it wasn't going to happen that way and we've seen so many of our young academy products leave over my time supporting the club that I'm kinda desensitised to it now and saw it coming. I'm glad he's moving to a club like Spurs and not a Bournemouth or Brentford, for his career prospects. He's good enough IMO, even if he ends up on loan somewhere for a year or two. But if I'm 8/10 sad about losing Archie, I'm 10/10 delighted that Rodon is our player, genuinely made up. He was so pivotal to us last season and I really thought he was gone for good, so to have him back is fantastic and probably makes this a net positive overall. I wonder if we're still in for Skipp too?
Obviously I don't wanna see him go, but like, if he is gonna go and it has to be now, it probably doesn't get any better for us outside of this deal, desperate to see Rodon in a Leeds shirt again. Just hope Spurs don't destroy him, I want the lad to go and do well, even if it means we miss out..
The fact that every subreddit of the teams he;'s been linked with are going wild shows how much of a loss this is to Leeds.
Think it’s a bad move for him. He’ll probably end up sitting on the bench half the time. Such a shame he couldn’t have stayed at Leeds.
Spurs fan here, cheers lads, better than Brentford
Is this the same thing as as Brentford deal? Meeting the release clause fee allows the team to speak with the player and perform a medical but it doesn't mean the deal will go through. I hope🥲
It’s beyond that, he’s gone I’m afraid.
I'm gonna hold out until I see an official statement from the club. I'll be pleasantly surprised if we held on to Archie but our track record for this stuff is shocking.