Good Morning. It's Tuesday 5th September, and here are the latest headlines from Elland Road Farke to keep his faith with Rutter Daniel Farke has insisted he's happy with Georginio Rutter's progress, but he needs to be more brutal in front of goal. He had tried a clever lob, on one of the rare accessions Leeds found themselves one on one with Devis Vásquez (the Sheffield Wednesday keeper), but the execution was lacking. The Leeds gaffer had to console the distraught 21yo after the game, explaining to him, 'it doesn't have to look great, it just has to find the back of the net'. In contrast to the Ipswich game, where Rutter was lorded by all and sundry, he was remembered for his most recent exploits for different reasons. He couldn't hide his disappointment (after the final whistle) and was given a warm embrace by several Leeds players. Rutter currently operates the centre-forward role, with Joel Piroe sitting just behind him as a No 10. Given the former Swansea players goal ratio, it would be fair to say he would be more suited as a nine, but where would that leave Rutter? “It's important that he's fit and comes into his rhythm and he proved at Ipswich he's in really good shape. “As a striker you can't really explain, there are times you find it unbelievably difficult to score and at other times you look at the ball and it goes in". "I spoke to him and told him the solution is not to overthink too much and when you find it difficult to find the net, don't try to be too artificial. It doesn't have to look great, it just has to find the back of the net." “For example, he tried the lob, you need to be there with a brutal finish." “He's still a young lad, a young player and has to develop this attitude. During tough times not to overthink and feel sorry for himself. Go for a clinical, brutal finish. That's what he will learn. All strikers have these periods. We're happy we have him." please log in to view this image Mourinho regretting signing Leeds duo Denmark star, turned Judas, Rasmus Kristensen could return to Elland Road in January if rumours in the Italian press regarding his future are to be believed. The 26yo has fallen behind both Zeki Celik and Rick Karsdorp in the pecking order at Roma, and is expected to be left out of their Europa League squad. He was named in the starting line up for the season opener against Salernitana, but was substituted at half time in his second match against Verona, and did not feature at all against Milan. Who would have thought, that after investing so heavily in the likes of Llorente and Kristensen that Roma would find themselves in the drop zone of Serie A? please log in to view this image If you were guaranteed a play off place now, would you take it Five games in, Leeds find themselves in 15th place in the Championship, with six points on the board, seven points off leaders Preston. It was always going to be a tough ask for any Manager coming in mid Summer, especially with the off field problems Daniel Farke has had to deal with. In truth, the signings look a much better fit, than that of last season; but how long will it take to get the team to gel? If you were guaranteed a play off place now, would you take it? please log in to view this image
Morning all Summer Holidays over and the kids are back at school. Rutter might come good. He's young enough to be molded in to what Farke wants and needs of him. If Rasmus is returned hopefully we can sell him and recoup some money.. I want to battle to the end and see where we finish.
Morning all. How can Kristensson return in January. Surely they were season long loans. Gonna be an interesting mess to sort going forward. He cost 10m and we wouldn't recoup 10p on him. Someone said Koch out of contract in summer so another 10p job. Sooner or later the rats are going to show up as major financial losses on the books. I wonder how the 49ers will explain that away to their investors especially when they were part of making the original deals. H happy 30th birthday to Paddy Bamford today. From here on he's not just a crock but an old one too
Morning all Best squad in the division, no reason we won't finish in the top two, almost criminal if we do not make the playoffs, that's a given as far as I am concerned so no I wouldn't take it if offered. Rutter, he'll either be great for us or Leeds fans will destroy one of their own, we need to give him time and get off his back, he's kept quiet and professional when the rats were jumping ship, he's trying. Kristensen, we don't need him back, Roma thought they were being clever exploiting the clauses, they should have signed Llorente and never so screw them, they can keep him until the end of the agreement
Good morning all No neither would i take a play off place, as let's face it if we turn out not to be a top six club, then we would have never got threw the play offs anyway. As for Christinsen and Lorente, what makes these clubs think they will play better for them? just goes to show how shi* their recruitment is, as ours once was.
This is actually really interested, and relates under what circumstances a loan contract can be terminated. CONSEQUENCES UNDER THE NEW RSTP WHERE THE LOAN CONTRACT HAS BEEN TERMINATED a) The Home Club’s obligation to take back a player The most significant clarification made by the New RSTP (Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players) relates to the contractual consequences of a premature termination of the employment contract signed between the player and the Loanee Club.8 In such circumstances, the Home Club will be obliged to take the player back immediately upon the request of the player. From that moment on, the original employment contract that had been suspended for the duration of the loan will be in force, such that the Home Club must pay the player’s wages.9 Although it is not spelled out within the rules as to loans, it is the author’s view that, if in such circumstances the Home Club refuses to immediately reintegrate the player, a tribunal would likely deem the original contract to have been unilaterally terminated by the Home Club, such that the consequences under Article 17 of the RSTP (for termination without just cause) will apply. b) Financial consequences following the premature return of a player to his Home Club The New RSTP are unclear as to the financial and/or sporting consequences which will result when there has been a unilateral termination of the employment contract between the player and the Loanee Club. This may give rise to some issues. For example, where a player has terminated their contract with the Loanee Club without just cause such that their Home Club has been “forced” to reintegrate them, what would be the position of the Home Club? In accordance with Article 17 paragraph 2 of the RSTP “if a professional is required to pay compensation, the professional and his new club shall be jointly and severally liable for its payment”. “New club” is defined in the RSTP as “the club that the player is joining”, and the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (“DRC”) has consistently held that the new club is the first club with which the player was registered following the breach of contract.10 Therefore, in the contemplated scenario, the Home Club could be jointly liable to pay any compensation that the player might have to pay to the Loanee Club, notwithstanding that it had no choice but to reintegrate the player. Perhaps surprisingly, such an approach has been taken in the past by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “CAS”).11 It thus seems that a player’s unjustified termination of the loan contract could put their Home Club in an impossible situation. Either it takes the player back immediately (as required by the New RSTP) and risks being liable to the Loanee Club for the player’s breach, or it refuses to do so, which could amount to a breach of its contract with the player. It will therefore be interesting to see how the DRC decides any such cases. c) The new concept of compensation introduced by Article 10 paragraph 5 c) At Article 10 paragraph 5 c), the New RSTP permit the Home Club to “seek compensation resulting from its obligation to reintegrate the professional”. The New RSTP do not specify from whom the Home Club may seek this compensation. However, we assume that compensation would be sought from the player or the Loanee Club, depending on which party breached the employment contract such as to cause the early return of the player. Article 10 paragraph 5 c) further provides that the minimum compensation payable shall be the amount the Home Club must pay the player between the date of reintegration and the original completion date of the loan. Accordingly, in a case where the player breached the loan contract, will it be the case that the Home Club, now jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation owed by the player to the Loanee Club, could take account of that liability when calculating the compensation to be sought from the player? In fact, the Home Club could end up having to pay a player’s salary (following the player’s unjustified termination of a loan contract) whilst pursuing the same player for compensation in relation to those payments (which would not have been required had the player not terminated the loan contract). d) Jurisdiction Finally, another issue which may arise under the New RSTP is where the Home Club and the player have the same nationality and the player has been loaned to a club in another country. In such circumstances, any claim of the Loanee Club against the player for breach of the contract would fall within the competence of FIFA, as such a claim would have an international dimension. However, any claim of the Home Club against the player for compensation in application of Article 10 paragraph 5 c) would not have an international dimension, such that, despite being based on FIFA regulations, such a claim would seemingly not fall within the competence of FIFA.
Anyone care to explain that in layman’s terms for me? In relation to the OP, I’ve been behind Farke all the way but if Joel Piroe is usually played at nine and given his scoring record then that’s where he should play. I wouldn’t settle for the playoffs now, the championship is a long season and I believe we’ll get stronger as the season goes on and the team gets used to his style of play. Could end up going on a run like Norwich did that season so we could go up automatically.
I'm going to be honest I didn't read it all. We inserted a clause that allowed players and their agents a free say in who they joined on loan, we as a club had zero say on who they joined or what pay they would receive. The clause was there as the player would have been on reduced wages with us had they stayed. They joined these other clubs on loan as they were obviously offering them more than they would have received had they stayed. We have zero obligation to the players who left, their own agents arranged the contracts so I would assume normal rules around loaning a player went right out the window. As they jumped ship for financial gain, and if the choice would be to come back to us for less money, or remaining at the loan club on a higher wage, I would assume all kinds of legal proceedings would be launched between the player and the loan club should the loan club wish to send them back
Rutter's goal against Ipswich was sublime. He danced through 4 or 5 defenders like the ball was glued to his boot.
These are my thoughts. Farke believes Rutter is best at 9, whilst Piroe can still operate well at 10. Why have a £35m player on the bench
Looks like the piece posted by Ell either comes from a legal or journalist website, given that it mentions opinions of the writer. So of course I went and checked the FIFA website Basically this is to do with the new rules on international loans. A club taking a player on an international loan can terminate the loan early. The parent club must take the loaned player back, if he wishes to return. The players contract with the home club is reinstated and the player must make himself available for all sporting related services to his parent club. If the loan is terminated by Roma then provided it is for "sporting reasons", (ie RK hasn't been sentenced to life in prison for murder), then we can seek compensation from Roma for taking the player back, in respect of the cost of reintegrating RK back into our club. Presumably RK would also be able to seek compensation from Roma I imagine that this would be Roma have to cover the wages that we are paying RK for the remainder of the loan period. Whether due to these new international loan rules, clubs have started to include clauses covering such an eventuality, and whether FIFA would comply with such causes when deciding on a compensation amount, we won't know until it matters. Basically our genius plan of signing players and allowing them to leave on loan upon relegation in an effort to reduce costs, may backfire due to FIFA changing the rules approx. 12 months ago.
Yes I agree, though many of these new rules inflicted by UEFA are well and truly in the players favour, especially the first one 'A' Its basically saying if the loan came to a premature end, the original club must take him back (upon players request), and cover all his wages (fair enough). If the Home club (original club?)refuses to immediately reintegrate the player, a tribunal would likely deem the original contract to have been unilaterally terminated by the Home Club, such that the consequences under termination without just cause. Does this mean that if a player returns early from loan, and the club do not make him feel welcome, he can tear up his contract?
If Farke said sorry RK, we've replaced you, so go and train with the kids for the rest of the season then potentially yes. If everyone at the club refuses to speak to him then potentially yes. If Farke let's RK train with first team, but never puts in him in the match day squad then no. However as a player with international caps he would expect too play first team football at some level and thus if he is involved in less than (sorry can't remember if it's 5% or 10% of games ) during a 12 month period then again FIFA rules allow him to terminate the contract. So put him on the bench for at max 5 games, bring him on with 10 seconds to go and that loophole is covered, I believe
Rutter is being utilised as a hold up player to lay the ball off to Piroe and the midfield runners, a bit like Viduka used to do. Trouble is on the evidence so far he doesn’t have the heading, shooting or scoring ability of Viduka.
Afternoon all, I can see no way back for Kristensen. Not only has he shown he isn't up to level we need he has burnt his bridges with the fans. If he comes back he needs moving on straight away, even if it's a loan to lower league.
But what Ell was referring to is that Roma could decide to send him back tomorrow, so we could be stuck with him for 4 months, before we can send him out on loan. So we can't move him on straight away But I agree with the point about sending him out on loan again in January
