Good Morning. It's Monday 20th November, and here are the latest headlines from Elland Road. Spurs may use Rodon as bargaining chip for unlikely candidate Tottenham Hotspur may use Joe Rodon as a bargaining chip, in their pursuit of an unlikely Leeds Utd candidate. A recent series of injuries for the North London outfit has made Ange Postecoglou reevaluate his squad, and has now fixed his sights on wantaway winger Wilfred Gnonto, in what has been suggested as a straight swap deal. The talented 20yo has endured a fractious relationship with Leeds Manager Daniel Farke since taking the reigns early June. Gnonto had set his sights on a move to Everton, and went on strike to try and force the transfer. In the end, Gnonto came to his senses, and normal service was resumed, but not before getting on the wrong side of the Elland Road faithful. Unfortunately, his performances have been found lacking this season, and after breaking his ankle in early September (at Hull), has been unable to force his way back into the starting line-up. Now, a fresh hamstring injury, picked up whilst on International duty with the Italian U21 squad threatens to hamper any plans he had to work his way back into the first team line-up. Leeds have a good working relationship with Tottenham Hotspur; not only this season, which has seen Joe Rodon and Djed Spence arrive on season long loans. The Elland Road pitch actually came from Spurs! Back in 2021, Leeds shelled out £300,000 for grass from their North London dealer. Days later, Leeds performed a well needed pitch transplant, which is still in place today! please log in to view this image Is Rodon worth £20m Whilst news of a swap deal involving Joe Rodon and Wilfred Gnonto makes sense, many have doubts whether the Welsh International is worth £20m. Rodon, 26, joined Spurs from Swansea in 2020 for £11m, and has made just fifteen appearances for them. After failing to impress, he joined French outfit Rennes on a season long loan during their 22/23 campaign with an option to buy. He only made a total of 15 appearances, before losing his slot to an 18yo Academy player. Whilst his transformation under Farke has been recognised by Spurs, he is still one of the first players they would like like to see out of the door, but believe they can double their money, even though he only has 18months left on his contract! Similarly, why aren't Leeds talking about doubling their money on the likes of Wober, Roca and Harrison who continue to impress for their loan clubs! Whilst Harrison may have cost only £11m, Leeds shelled out £9m in loan fees over three seasons. Unfortunately, Leeds failed to persuade Everton to pay a loan fee for the Birthday boy, when he joined in August. please log in to view this image Everton set to appeal 10 point deduction Everton are set to appeal their ten point deduction for their blatant disregard to financial fair play rules. The Premier League took action against the Toffee's last month during a five day hearing after the Merseyside club posted losses of over £272m over a three year period. Whilst fans of other clubs are astonished at the leniency of the punishment, Everton believe the punishment is harsh, and intend to appeal the sanction. "The Club has already communicated its intention to appeal the decision to the Premier League. The appeal process will now commence and the Club’s case will be heard by an Appeal Board appointed pursuant to the Premier League’s rules in due course. "Everton maintains that it has been open and transparent in the information it has provided to the Premier League and that it has always respected the integrity of the process. The Club does not recognise the finding that it failed to act with the utmost good faith and it does not understand this to have been an allegation made by the Premier League during the course of proceedings. "Both the harshness and severity of the sanction imposed by the Commission are neither a fair nor a reasonable reflection of the evidence submitted. The Club will also monitor with great interest the decisions made in any other cases concerning the Premier League's Profit and Sustainability Rules. "Everton cannot comment on this matter any further until the appeal process has concluded." please log in to view this image
Morning all. We dug up that Spurs pitch after Elland. It was a temporary fix. Swap Gnonto with Rodon. I'll do the driving from Elland Road to the spurs ground. Would be a great deal. Everton? I don't give a flying. All a bit of a farce really
Why not do a Rodon + Spence deal and get it done in January ? Means we might have to give Spurs around £10M but that could potentially be a good deal for us. Morning all by the way
£20m for Rodon, not for me. Im not convinced he’ll cut it in the Prem (should we get promoted). Happy if he comes for £15m and he proves me wrong. Rodon coming here, plus a fee for us to let Gnonto go to Spurs, works for me. But if Gnonto is happy to stay I’d keep him.
Last week the story was all about Struijk going to Spurs the media love a good story and why Ryan Kent reared his head again too ffs
Good morning all Gnonto may turn out to be a great player, but for some reason doesn't appear to show any interest in putting in the effort for us, so let him go, like Jammy's idea above about a swap for Spence & Rodon and possibly 10m, that in my eyes would be a great bit of business, Spence even from the 10-15 min i saw would be a good player for us, so him & Rodon yes please.
i imagine there might be a benefit in 'undervaluing' gnonto and rodon to help us with the allegedly very high sell on % on Gnonto
My reading is that Zurich can do nothing https://www.linklaters.com/en/insig...ariable-sell-on-clauses-in-football-transfers
Interesting read Doc, however I would say that this seems to be concerned with not so much "sell on clauses" per se, but that a club can included a variable sell on clause. IE the club (PAOK) selling the player had to pay the increased sell on clause demanded by Arsenal as they sold him on subsequently to an English team. Arsenal initially lost the claim, but won on appeal. Unless of course I have missed something obvious (easily done these days with me ), it reads to me that upon appeal, the club that insisted upon there being a "sell on clause" won, so not sure how that would be favourable to ourselves in the Gnonto situation. My presumption is that FIFA would determine a value for any player transferred by way of swap with another player, to allow a "sell on clause" fee to be calculated. Within the FIFA CAS journals I haven't found any situation that meets that criteria specifically, so I will freely admit that I am making a logical guess that could well be incorrect. However as a juxtapose position to Doc's, I will use the CAS hearing CAS 2019/A/6525 of Sevilla v FC Nancy. Nancy sold a player to Seville with a sell on clause. The player then subsequently bought out his contract and went and joined Barcelona. Sevilla argued that they did not need to pay a sell on fee, as they didn't sell the player or even initiate the transfer, however CAS ruled in favour of Nancy, both in the initial hearing and the subsequent appeal. Neither mine nor Doc's examples cover the specific question asked by Ell, and the only other view I can offer at the moment is from an article posted by the Athetic in August 2021, so not exactly evidence that I would rely upon https://theathletic.com/2771268/202...e-fair-why-swap-deals-dont-happen-more-often/ Cynics — and there are plenty of them — would also question whether there is some clever accounting at play at times with swap deals. The exchange involving Arthur Melo and Miralem Pjanic last summer raised eyebrows, bearing in mind that both players were valued in excess of €60 million, enabling Barcelona and Juventus to both report a tidy profit in their accounts. Even if no money changes hands between clubs as part of a swap deal, the valuations of the players is still important for all sorts of reasons and not just the clubs’ own book-keeping. There are often sell-on clauses to calculate, levies which are payable to the league on domestic deals, solidarity payments to be made on international transfers and training compensation to consider, too. World football governing body FIFA monitors the “transfer agreements” closely in that respect.
Nice one Mr Petrocelli Think that FIFA are not very happy about sell on clauses as they are open to abuse and Leeds are very fond of using them. Elia Caprile is the one coming to fruition as we have a 20% clause and why we allowed him to go so cheap. Max Dean had one attached to his nominal transfer fee to MK Dons, there are others recently done too and Leif Davies and Niall Huggins have them, so too does Ryan Edmondson although can’t see us getting a cup of coffe from that. But all the players in recent times where we allowed them to go cheap or “released from contract” all have a sell on clause unless they were released and didnt have a club.
With Gnonto we have a huge sell on clause, so maybe a clever swap deal to be done valuing both players much lower than their market value
Can’t wait for Friday but a little concerned that the international break may have messed with the momentum we were building up (didn’t we look a bit off it first game back after the previous two?). Also did it come at a good time for Leicester back-to-back defeats?
You mean with a 3-0 win away to Millwall and then our 3-2 away win at Norwich. So given that we now have a pattern of 2 for this season, we will make it a hattrick and score 3 goals away at Rotherham on Friday
