Lee Peltier to Leeds

I think we can get someone better then Pelts but i think we could of get a bit more then 300K. Maybe Nigel sees more potential in Liam Moore and thinks he can provide back up

 

We bought him for 750k - shows how inept Sven was with money.

 

He is no better than back up in my opinion. He has some great attributes: pace being one. But his positional awareness is truly horrific and will cause the defence more troubles than he prevents. But on paper he is the best we have - so does this mean a replacement is lined up?

 

Well so far Leeds have been linked with Mills,St Ledger, Beckford,Wellens and Bamba so why miss Pelts out? I think 300k is a joke if true.

 

Or how crap Nigel is at selling?

 

I believe John Pantsil is available..... oh, wait........

 

@Pelts_86: Rumours are rumours ppl I aint heard anything, looking forward going bk training next week

 

Pelts is still worth the 750k we paid for him, hes still got a first team spot here, the only real competition he will have is from De Laet if hes been bought in to play in that position.

Hes still miles better than Robbie Neilson

Keep the faith Pelts

 

The article in question suggests that Pearson is keen on Rosenior; hence pelts moving on. Personally, I thought he had a promising first season and that the aspects of his game that need improving could be done by coaching - he is pacey and was one of our most potent threats at set pieces ... as I said, I think he has potential and would be a little saddened if he moves on - particularly at a financial loss!!!!

 

Maybe Nigel think Liam Moore is better then Pelts

With Ritchie De Laet coming in Pelts wasnt going to be first choice

 

This won't happen for a number of reasons but I think the main one is that there is a supposed 'takeover' and theres nothing thats happening during this period of time

 

I like Peltier - defensively he is suspect but as an attacker he is rather good.

Could be that he is on a yearly increase contract and the increase is a stupid percentage.

 

One thing we should consider is that he isn't probably worth the £750k we paid in the first place. But also, we bought him as a top League 1 player who it was assumed could comfortably make the step up. Now he is a player who is proven as a lower-mid Championship RB so is probably worth less.

However, £300k is far too much depreciation for him and I'd want at least £500k for him. I wonder why we're selling him for that price. Wages?

And I think Moore would benefit from a full season on loan playing rather than as back-up.

 

Think it is all due to the new financial constraints that the Football League are imposing on clubs, to make them self sufficient. Effectively, these new regulations start now, and previous seasons are not taken into consideration. High wage players who are not likely to be playing in the starting XI are going to be sold on the cheap, whilst starting XI players on low wages are likely to be higher priced in the transfer market by the selling club. Clubs have to ensure they comply with the regulations or face massive penaties. Our owners can pay in £6m this season out of their own pockets, whilst the rest must be self generated. Not sure how sponsorship deals are viewed by the League when the sponsors are the owners.

 

Isn't this how Man City are getting around the new conditions?

 

.. what abou Chelsea? ... gates of 40,000 yet they have already paid £35m? for Hazzard and looking at the same again for Hulk ...

 

If its a wage problem, then the 1 team i cannot see him going to is Leeds. Hes probably already on more than Snodgrass.

 

I don't think it is though.

It'll be an ability problem. He hasn't played well since before Nige took over.

 

Pelts is an average championship right back. He will do a job but nothing decent.

 

Agreed.

Would be good for an industrial side like Watford or Bristol.