2019-20 Transfer News and Squad Discussions

[Nic]

Hopefully not for £20m like Man City wanted.

Think Man City now rate him as £15M, whether that's the amount in the clause I don't know

[Nic]

Phil Hay says Clarke will rejoin on loan.

Conflicted on that tbh. One one hand glad he'll still be here, but we're developing him for Spurs at our expense and if he has a great season, we've increased his price tag. Plus if we go up because of him, he's gone forever.

I totally agree with your point could be heartbreaking watching him develop. It also puts him under a great deal of pressure where he might get berated for mistakes unfairly.

Whilst he may be a better player than the likes of Kent, I think we may have been better getting more money for him and him having a clean break.

Would we have got more money for him though? It might have been possible we get a higher addon fee if Spurs win the PL but I don't think we would get more more up front.

[SG90]

Phil Hay says Clarke will rejoin on loan.

Conflicted on that tbh. One one hand glad he'll still be here, but we're developing him for Spurs at our expense and if he has a great season, we've increased his price tag. Plus if we go up because of him, he's gone forever.

So because he's left you want him to fail? Are you one of these fans who looks at ex-players who go to a premier league club and glad they only get to sit on the bench all the time?

Yes, it would have been so much better for us to not sell him and arguably he would have been worth more next year if we hadn't sold him, like the quote Bielsa did in regards to Viera. However the club decided they needed to sell a player and sold Clarke. There was the clause that we get first refusal if going out on loan and if we get him now for the full season it at least mitigates somewhat the loss we would have by selling him. Spurs do get a better player with a higher price tag but we get to utilise him and the money from his sale means other players coming in we might not have had.

Don't many clubs buy young players in the hope they go out on loan and be better/worth more in a year or two? Isn't part of the appeal of us asking certain clubs for loan players in that Bielsa will give them back a better player?

Eh? Where on earth have I said I want him to fail? Unlike most Leeds fans, I haven't started slating him the minute he left and I've been critical of the fee as it's short termist.

The issue with loaning Jack back, is if he has a great season, as I suspect he will after he overcomes his illness and loss of confidence, we have increased the price tag for him at Tottenham after selling him for less. Also there's the issue that he will be forced to play regardless of form, as we saw with Harrison, or face a massive fine. So better players in form may miss out. So Tottenham are the big winners in all this.

Also if he helps us to go up, he won't ever be coming back, because we simply will not afford to buy him, even in the PL.

[Deleted User 728]

I'm not sure about the "forced to play" thing as I don't think there's typically a clause to that effect.

The nature of a loan means the club borrowing the player has a gap in the squad, either a physical gap in that they need more numbers or a skills gap in that they may have an existing but very defensive left back but they're lacking an attacking wingback who can also play there, hence they enter the loan market for that type of player.

Not many managers like being told "X must play" under any circumstances and I am certain Bielsa would say no to any such clause.

Only the legal bods, agents, managers and the player himself will know for sure though but I really don't think it's that common a scenario.

[Nic]

Do you think Harrison was played last season because he had to be? I seriously doubt it, if he was played when another player was on the bench would have been the choice of the coach and whilst you as a fan may have disagreed Bielsa will have thought otherwise. If that was the case then would we want him back for a second season.

Maybe the idea supports your argument, whether or not it be true/commonplace/or what you really believe. I understand the issue of Jack coming back, if he does well Spurs get a better player worth more - but surely that's the same argument we are wanting to actually use for getting loan players. A reason why we should go in for loans at PL clubs whose managers/coaches admire Bielsa is they may be willing to loan us starlets because they know they will get a much better player back rather than just any player on their squad who won't stand a chance of getting a first team spot. Do we want PL rejects who aren't even good enough to push for a starting place at Leeds, even when we get injuries!!

Clubs often loan out players to lower league sides who most likely won't cut it in the first team to get them in the shop window and hopefully with the idea that it may lead to bids. I'd much prefer to get loans of better quality players where their managers are hoping Bielsa will improve so they get a player back good enough for the first team rather than a player they've signed who looks like not good enough and just needs to go out on loan in the hope they may improve or a championship club may eventually buy.

[dangermouse]

I find it strange also Clarke will come back. I wish him all the best but he will be no longer be our player so if he does well it would be quite bittersweet. I would far rather we develop a player who arguably had a bigger impact last season - Malik Wilks who couldn't have done much more to impress on loan. Loaning out a contracted player and bringing in another clubs player to develop doesn't seem right to me.

[dunlop]

ref clarke:
how much (if any?)of the transfer fee we received for him will we lose by loaning him back from spurs???

[Another Northern Soul]

IF it's true and he is being loaned back to us then in all honesty he could eat puppies for breakfast for all I care if he helps the team to success. I don't dream of the club having a fantastic bank balance or worrying what players' wages are, it's success for the team that dominates.

[Deleted User 5081]

Do you think Harrison was played last season because he had to be? I seriously doubt it, if he was played when another player was on the bench would have been the choice of the coach and whilst you as a fan may have disagreed Bielsa will have thought otherwise. If that was the case then would we want him back for a second season.

Maybe the idea supports your argument, whether or not it be true/commonplace/or what you really believe. I understand the issue of Jack coming back, if he does well Spurs get a better player worth more - but surely that's the same argument we are wanting to actually use for getting loan players. A reason why we should go in for loans at PL clubs whose managers/coaches admire Bielsa is they may be willing to loan us starlets because they know they will get a much better player back rather than just any player on their squad who won't stand a chance of getting a first team spot. Do we want PL rejects who aren't even good enough to push for a starting place at Leeds, even when we get injuries!!

Clubs often loan out players to lower league sides who most likely won't cut it in the first team to get them in the shop window and hopefully with the idea that it may lead to bids. I'd much prefer to get loans of better quality players where their managers are hoping Bielsa will improve so they get a player back good enough for the first team rather than a player they've signed who looks like not good enough and just needs to go out on loan in the hope they may improve or a championship club may eventually buy.

I think in that most clubs who are loaning out a player would have a specific amount of games that they would like their player to be involved in so that the player can gain experience or else the player would lose value for the parent club. It may not be stipulated in the overall contract but no one want's their loan players to be stuffed into the U23 squad of another team either.

Izzy Brown last season only played a handful of first team games and most of them were coming on as a substitute. In his case there possibly could have been a clause but due to the severe injury he had Leeds were probably unable to risk Izzy in games just in case the injury happened again or became weaker. Some clubs will have a minimum requirement but i can't ever see a team trying to force another club to play the player in every game or the contract is null and void. That wouldn't happen in today's football.

[Deleted User 5081]

IF it's true and he is being loaned back to us then in all honesty he could eat puppies for breakfast for all I care if he helps the team to success. I don't dream of the club having a fantastic bank balance or worrying what players' wages are, it's success for the team that dominates.

I agree on that ANS. As soon as he comes back he is a Leeds player again for the length of the loan contract and if he scores a ton of goals it would be awesome for us and for his career at Spurs too when he goes back to them.