The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 11th June)

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

ellandback

Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator
Mar 30, 2011
63,383
35,099
113
Southampton
You must log in or register to see images


Good Morning. It's Thursday 11st June, and here are the latest headlines from Elland Road

Extension talks with veteran duo spark discontent among Whites fans

Leeds fans have taken to social media in force to express their discontent after reports emerged that the club are currently negotiating contract extensions for Sam Byram and Alex Cairns. The news has proven particularly divisive among the fanbase, with Byram drawing the bulk of the criticism. The 32-year-old defender managed less than 30 minutes of game time throughout the entirety of last season, a statistic that has left supporters questioning the wisdom of offering him a new deal. While many acknowledge that his experience and senior player profile provide valuable dressing room presence, fans argue that retaining a player who barely featured represents a failure to progress the project forward.

Further frustrating supporters is the perception that Byram's continued inclusion in the squad could potentially block opportunities for academy graduates with promising futures. Last season, manager Daniel Farke frequently opted to field players out of position rather than give Byram minutes, a decision that some fans viewed as an admission that the former Norwich City man was not part of his plans. Meanwhile, veteran goalkeeper Alex Cairns, 33, has faced lighter scrutiny as fourth in the goalkeeping pecking order. The former Fleetwood Town and Salford City stopper would only be called upon in emergency situations, leading some to question whether offering him an extension represents the best use of the club's resources.

You must log in or register to see images


Everton Ordered to Pay Burnley £35m in Landmark Compensation Ruling​

In a historic decision that could reshape English football's financial landscape, Everton have been ordered to pay Burnley approximately £35 million in compensation following a Premier League independent disciplinary commission verdict. The Toffee's found themselves in a sticky situation having overspent during their 2021–22 campaign, provided them with an unfair sporting advantage, eventually surviving the season by the skin of their teeth. The Toffees finished 16th that campaign, just four points ahead of 18th-placed Burnley.

Burnley's legal team demonstrated that had Everton's eventual six-point deduction been applied during that actual season, Everton would have been relegated instead of them, and the disciplinary panel agreed! The award consists of £26 million in base compensation plus over £9.1 million in accrued interest, marking the first time a club has faced such substantial civil liability for breaching Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR). Everton have been assured that the compensation fine will not count toward any future PSR / SCR calculations.

Everton released a statement expressing "surprise and anger" at the ruling, describing the decision as "fundamentally flawed in both law and fact." The club has launched an immediate appeal and management has assured supporters the fine will not impact their summer transfer window plans. According to sports law experts, this ruling represents a watershed moment for English football. At the time, Leeds threatened legal action too, but reached an out-of-court settlement with Everton as they still suffered significant, quantifiable financial losses by finishing below them, but were not relegated that season.

You must log in or register to see images


Leeds set to cut their losses on Perri

According to the Yorkshire Evening Post, Leeds United are preparing to accept a transfer offer for goalkeeper Lucas Perri, less than a year after the 28‑year‑old arrived at Elland Road for a £15.6 million fee from Lyon. Perri’s debut campaign has been marred by a string of unconvincing performances, mirroring the difficulties faced by fellow shot‑stopper Illan Meslier, and manager Daniel Farke ultimately opted to promote Karl Darlow between the posts in a bid to stabilise the defence.

The tipping point came in early January, when Leeds travelled to St James’ Park to face Newcastle United. After leading 3‑2 at the end of normal time, the Whites conceded twice in extra time to slip to a 4‑3 defeat, a result that left Farke fuming and underscored the club’s growing impatience with Perri’s inconsistent form. With Illan Meslier already departed and contract extensions on the table for both Karl Darlow and Alex Cairns, Perri is now the only senior goalkeeper still under contract at Leeds.

The club must now decide how much of the original £15.6 million outlay they are willing to write off, and whether they can generate sufficient funds in the upcoming summer window to either reinvest in a new keeper or bolster other areas of the squad. The coming weeks are likely to reveal whether Leeds can afford to absorb the financial hit or will need to act swiftly in the transfer market to fill the void.

You must log in or register to see images
 
Morning all

Perri is a tricky one, we could be left with no keepers and held to ransom on any targets. Does the Everton fine affect their transfer budget and can we do the same to Leicester who overspent and went up, floodgates opening on that one.

Hugely disappointed that we’ve offered Byram a new contract
 
Morning all,

I would hope the club would not let Perri move without having at least one keeper signed up, and I don't mean Cairns.

If Byram and Cairns are willing to stay on low wages do the club see them as a cheap and easy way to balance home grown status?
 
  • Like
Reactions: foolee
Morning all. I really don’t understand the Byram extension offer given that he wasn’t used last season? Even the “home grown” argument doesn’t make sense, might as well promote from the academy if they’re not going to play (though I guess that might hamper their development).
 
Morning all

Perri is a tricky one, we could be left with no keepers and held to ransom on any targets. Does the Everton fine affect their transfer budget and can we do the same to Leicester who overspent and went up, floodgates opening on that one.

Hugely disappointed that we’ve offered Byram a new contract
Nope, it has no affect on SCR, as it's not classed as an everyday football expense, from what little I heard of Kieran Maguire's quotes on the news.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ristac
Morning all,

I would hope the club would not let Perri move without having at least one keeper signed up, and I don't mean Cairns.

If Byram and Cairns are willing to stay on low wages do the club see them as a cheap and easy way to balance home grown status?
It’s got to be for the home grown quota. I mean I don’t care re Cairns, knows the club & will be 3rd choice. I mean might be first choice at this rate so better sign him up just in case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hemase
It’s got to be for the home grown quota. I mean I don’t care re Cairns, knows the club & will be 3rd choice. I mean might be first choice at this rate so better sign him up just in case.
Without making any signings, extending expired contracts etc, we already have 9 homegrown players in the squad, so 1 more than required. Bogle, Justin, Rodon, Ampadu, Struijk, James, Longstaff, DCL and Nmecha.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FORZA LEEDS
Without making any signings, extending expired contracts etc, we already have 9 homegrown players in the squad, so 1 more than required. Bogle, Justin, Rodon, Ampadu, Struijk, James, Longstaff, DCL and Nmecha.
It’s possible that Struijk doesn’t resign and if Nmecha doesn’t we’ll probably try and get a fee for. Wouldn’t surprise me if we offloaded James or Longstaff either so could just be to cover ourselves.