Jack Clarke

[SG90]

The resources and improvements in the U23's isn't short term.

It depends. If it's for us to build a legacy with, then I agree. If it's for Radz to flog to the top 6 to waste on loans, then it isn't.

[The Subhuman]

The resources and improvements in the U23's isn't short term.

Rads and Orta have done a lot more good than bad (Imagine if like, just about every owner/admin before, them they gave Jack a 2 yr contract in late 17) in the, just over, two years they've been here. (I'm using the buy out date) Rads came in inexperienced, made errors, I'll concede that, but is gradually building something good here.

Do you remember every Leeds fan screaming, back in the day, that we didn't give our players long enough contracts...!! Erm ....so we do and that's wrong now?

No guarantees in football, we could spend 30M and do worse than last year.

[Cjay]

The resources and improvements in the U23's isn't short term.

Typical Sevilla strategy, Orta cut his teeth at Sevilla they specialised in buy young sell high, relatively cheap and risk free.

Its not about the long term future of LUFC that may just be a by product, all they need is 1 to make it (Bogusz for example) and that will pay for the lot when sold.

If the u23s were about building our future then we wouldn't be selling our best young players. Its a lot less risky buying a load of youth players for relative peanuts then buying proven talent for the first team.

The u23s did very well tbf but first and foremost Radz will be hoping he can make huge money on them and as we have seen the last two windows the second they are worth something they will be sold.

[SG90]

Rads and Orta have done a lot more good than bad (Imagine if like, just about every owner/admin before, them they gave Jack a 2 yr contract in late 17) in the, just over, two years they've been here. (I'm using the buy out date) Rads came in inexperienced, made errors, I'll concede that, but is gradually building something good here.

Do you remember every Leeds fan screaming, back in the day, that we didn't give our players long enough contracts...!! Erm ....so we do and that's wrong now?

No guarantees in football, we could spend 30M and do worse than last year.

The issue is we gave long contracts to back up players who we're now stuck with and eating up the wage bill. I said i have no issues with young talent on long term deals.

Why is Bogusz only on two years?

[SG90]

Typical Sevilla strategy, Orta cut his teeth at Sevilla they specialised in buy young sell high, relatively cheap and risk free.

Its not about the long term future of LUFC that may just be a by product, all they need is 1 to make it (Bogusz for example) and that will pay for the lot when sold.

If the u23s were about building our future then we wouldn't be selling our best young players. Its a lot less risky buying a load of youth players for relative peanuts then buying proven talent for the first team.

The u23s did very well tbf but first and foremost Radz will be hoping he can make huge money on them and as we have seen the last two windows the second they are worth something they will be sold.

Again, spot on.

The u23s are not for us, they are for the vultures to enjoy. Just enjoy them while we can.

If we were serious about building a legacy, we'd be keeping them, rather than paying money to loan youth from the top 6 who are no better than what we have here already.

[gessa]

Like it or not gate receipts can not keep a club going financially, the deal the FL did with Sky doesn't bring in anywhere near enough, the merchandise sold helps but doesn't fill the gap. The only way to keep clubs going is to sell players, even the clubs coming down with their parachute payments look to get rid, it's how the game is. People talk of £10m as though it's nothing, just think what you could do with that amount of money.
I think what grates me,with some, is any negative news is jumped on and totally believed any positive news is recieved with scepticism and any negative that can be remotely found in it used to beat Radz again.

[The Subhuman]

The issue is we gave long contracts to back up players who we're now stuck with and eating up the wage bill. I said i have no issues with young talent on long term deals.

Why is Bogusz only on two years?

They were not intended to be back up when we bought them and if they were they'll be on comparitively low wages ..also our definition of back up may differ

Dallas Beradi Forshaw et al are all good first teamers. Anita was bought as a starter and most liked the move at the time as were others

No idea why Bogusz is on a 2 year..could be all he wanted to sign, could be Rads over compensating for all the too many long contracts criticism he gets.

He's still learning, when he bought us I said three to five years to rebuild and we're ahead of schedule...I'm very happy with the team running LUFC.

[SG90]

Like it or not gate receipts can not keep a club going financially, the deal the FL did with Sky doesn't bring in anywhere near enough, the merchandise sold helps but doesn't fill the gap. The only way to keep clubs going is to sell players, even the clubs coming down with their parachute payments look to get rid, it's how the game is. People talk of £10m as though it's nothing, just think what you could do with that amount of money.
I think what grates me,with some, is any negative news is jumped on and totally believed any positive news is recieved with scepticism and any negative that can be remotely found in it used to beat Radz again.

Again, if we didn't waste so much money we wouldn't need to sell our young talent to cover the shortfall. Why are looking at spending money to loan Ryan Kent rather than give a chance to Gotts or Stevens? Kent did nothing in two previous loan spells in this division, so why would he be any better now? Another player we'd be forced to play regardless of form or face a fine.

£10m Clarke v £5m loans, £3m Forshaw, £1.5m Sacko, £1.5m De Bock = £11m. Have the latter made anywhere near the impact on the first team as Clarke did in his brief cameo? That's why we've been forced to sell him, poor recruitment. Not ffp. Not sky. Not sponsorship deals.

[gessa]

If only it was that easy, we could all a football club.

[whiteswan]

I wonder if the chat Bielsa had with Radz was for both to spell out what was needed. Radz explains that he needs to sell....Bielsa explains who must stay, so the sale of young Clarke was agreed by both. Hopefully Bielsa made it quite clear who must stay, and warned Radz that only Clarke will be sold.
But then....who knows

[SG90]

The worry for me is Clarke sale is for last year's accounts, so if we're spending money this year we need to sell. Hopefully we get £5m for Forshaw, £2m Ekuban, £2.5m Saiz, plus Cibicki, Sacko should get moves. Hopefully that will bring in over £10m and we won't need to sell any key players or youth.

[gessa]

If anyone thinks we're getting £3m for Sacko and De Bock, needs a reality check.

Personally I don't see the point in this transfer, it won't improve Spurs as a team, Clarke isn't anywhere near their first team, so as with Byram and Taylor he'll be forgotten as a player but richer as a person, it could well weaken us, depending who we bring in

[gessa]

Ekuban is 1M euro's

[SG90]

Ekuban is 1M euro's

I thought Phil Hay said it was £2m?

Cibicki and Sacko are wanted, so at least we will get a fee and them off the wage bill, although we won't get our money back.

[gessa]

Now the much maligned Forshaw is worth £5m, unbelievable

[gessa]

I thought Phil Hay said it was £2m?

Cibicki and Sacko are wanted, so at least we will get a fee and them off the wage bill, although we won't get our money back.

Not according to his new team, they said 1m euro's

[SG90]

Now the much maligned Forshaw is worth £5m, unbelievable

That's what we want for him, but we'll be lucky to get the £3m back. Hopefully Fulham are daft enough to give us £5m.

[Cjay]

I credit Radz with bringing in Bielsa, absolutely 100%.

The u23s have done well so fair play for that.

But aside from that what has he done that he deserves credit for? Genuine question.

He sent us backwards in his first season, wasted a lot of money to through Orta.

He dragged the clubs name through the mud with the Myanmar thing. He attracted unwanted attention by ranting about Wolves which he then didnt act on anyway.

He under his ownership allowed the club to be the first EFL Championship team ever to lose the playoff semi final after winning the first leg away.

Ok so that happened, surely if you get that close you should do everything's in your power to ensure the club improves.

You shouldn't go on national tele or radio and announce "difficult summers" which basically opens the club up to lowball offers left right and centre.

This season is it for us, last chance with the best manager we have had for years and years.

Radz is allowed to invest more money, he is, selling Clarke or Phillips isnt necessary if the owner will fund the club.

So why not give it a proper go now? Give MB a real chance, spend some real money on getting the absolute best players we can to give the best manager we have had for ages the best chance?

Keep all our best players, invest in 3 or 4 top class players and go for it.

If we dont make it then fine, at least we tried, contrary to what a lot of us thought it wouldn't be curtains, points deductions wont follow if we cover the losses next summer so then we can sell players and go back to cutting our cloth accordingly.

Why would that be such a bad idea? Just for once the club make a proper effort.

If we dont go up next season then MB goes, thats it anyway.

Why as a club cant they say "right, we got close last season so lets invest properly now, we will cover the losses from our own pockets for this season and then should we not make it we will recoup the money through sales".

[gessa]

Also, lets not forget how fans were up in arms this time last year, about the rumoured sale of Tom Pearce to Everton for £8m, it never happened, now it looks like he's on his way for £500k.

[weasel]

Also, lets not forget how fans were up in arms this time last year, about the rumoured sale of Tom Pearce to Everton for £8m, it never happened, now it looks like he's on his way for £500k.

Great point. Very easy for us to try to get Clarke to sign a new contract, match Spurs at £20k per week on a 4 year deal. We keep him and his career nosedives and we end up paying him £4m in wages and get no transfer fee. So many youngsters look great but then don't make it, I am sure Spurs will have signed quite a few duds but because they sign a lot of young prospects the odd one or two will make it.

Alex Mowatt is a prime example. Played superbly in the Leeds first team and made far more appearances than Clarke. Then all of a sudden his career nosedived. If we had cashed in on him when he hit his prime we could have got a lot of money and he certainly looked the real deal and had produced consistently for a long period of time.

Sam Byram was immense in his first season. He wasn't just a potentially good player he was head and shoulders the best player at the club on ability alone. He didn't need to improve he was already class and if he simply continued to play at that level would have had a pretty good career. Last I saw he was playing for Notts Forest and having a shocking game.

Easy to lambast Orta for some poor signings but if we'd signed the equivalent of Mowatt and Byram at their prime they would have been seen as unbelievably good signings, then a year later we would be saying why did we sign them for huge money and on 4 year contracts worth a fortune.

This time last year we were all saying what a stunning signing Barry Douglas was. £3m an absolute snip. Would we get £3m for him now? Has he justified the huge wages he is likely on?