You must log in or register to see images
Good Morning. It's Tuesday 19th May, and here are the latest headlines from Elland Road
Sell on clause could scupper Gnonto deal
Leeds winger Wilfred Gnonto has emerged as a target for Bundesliga outfit SC Freiburg this summer, yet hopes of securing the 22yo's services could be scuppered by a formidable financial obstacle buried in the fine print of his original transfer from FC Zurich. When Leeds desperate and depleted on the final day of the 2022 summer transfer window, having watched multiple targets slip through their fingers in dramatic fashion (including being stood up at the airport by Bamba Dieng), they turned to Gnonto as their saviour, securing the Swiss club's prized asset for a modest £5 million fee. However, what seemed like a bargain acquisition at the time has since transformed into a potential headache, as revelations about a huge sell-on clause casting doubt over any future sale for the Italian ace.Back in the summer of 2023, the Breakfast Debate caught up with former FC Zurich player turned journalist Kay Voser, who exclusively confirmed that the President of FCZ (Ancillo Canepa) had told him that he had negotiated an 'extraordinarily high sell-on clause' when Gnonto departed for Elland Road four years ago, believed to be in the region of 40%. Although Gnonto has since committed his future to Leeds by signing a contract extension that keeps him at the club until June 2028, the lure of a new start in the Bundesliga is an attractive proposition; but is it worth Leeds selling him if they are to recoup less than £10m from the deal? He can't be worth much more than £15m, out of which Leeds would receive just over half. This falls far short of what would be required to recruit a player of comparable ability in today's inflated market.
You must log in or register to see images
D-Day for Spygate 2.0: Football's Greatest Integrity Test
The eyes of the football world turn to an independent disciplinary commission today as the Spygate saga reaches its dramatic finale. In just four days, Southampton are scheduled to walk out at Wembley Stadium for the most lucrative fixture in world football against Hull City, with promotion to the Premier League, and a minimum £200m windfall in additional income. This is football's moment of reckoning, a test of whether the game's governing bodies possess the conviction to protect competitive integrity at the game's highest stakes.The charges against Southampton are serious. The club stands accused by the English Football League of breaching two regulations: Regulation 3.4, requiring clubs to act towards each other with the utmost good faith, and Regulation 127, which prohibits any club from observing or attempting to observe another club's training session within 72 hours of a scheduled match between them. The incident allegedly occurred on the morning of Thursday, 7 May, when Middlesbrough were preparing at their Rockliffe Park base for the play-off semi-final against Southampton just 48 hours away.
According to sources, Will Salt (trainee analyst) parked at a nearby golf club, walked several hundred yards to a raised area overlooking the training ground, and stood pointing his mobile phone at the session while wearing in-ear headphones. Middlesbrough staff believe he may have been live-streaming the session via video call. When confronted, the individual refused to identify himself, hastily deleted content from his phone, and fled into the golf club, changing clothes before leaving the premises. Middlesbrough's photographer captured images that were later matched to a photograph on Southampton's official website, one of which subsequently entered the public domain.
Unlike the 2019 Leeds United spying case, where Marcelo Bielsa's staff were caught watching Derby County's training but no regulation specifically prohibited such conduct, regulation 127 exists precisely because of that incident. Southampton's alleged transgression therefore represents the first breach of a law specifically designed to prevent such behaviour. As such, the punishment must serve as a deterrent, otherwise it's not worth putting these rules in place. The problem the EFL have, is that Kicking Southampton out of the play-offs seems excessive, whilst a fine or even future points deduction would do very little for Middlesborough's cause. The punishment must fit both the crime and the deterrent requirement, and that won't be easy.
You must log in or register to see images
