Leeds banter 10

02 Jul 2026 16:42:14
The doubts about our recruitment department still remain. What the hell are they doing? No club statement about Harry Wilson. Until it’s officially announced, it’s not a done deal.

02 Jul 2026 17:58:51
Agree, Mick. We are in July, he is out of contract with Fulham, so why the delay? Come on, Leeds, give the fans a boost and announce it.

02 Jul 2026 18:15:43
Just ironing out some details in the contract. Patience.

02 Jul 2026 19:02:28
Ironing out the wedge of a signing on fee!

02 Jul 2026 19:10:27
He's on holiday.

02 Jul 2026 19:11:06
Patience, Alf! They've had many weeks to sort out the contract so that they could unveil him on July 1st when he officially became a free agent, and yet still they're not ready. Doesn't exactly fill us with confidence in the other deals that we urgently need getting done. Get your fingers out!

02 Jul 2026 19:12:08
This one should go through. If it doesn't, then the recruitment team will lose all credibility.

02 Jul 2026 19:35:42
Indeed, Mick. Doubts do remain.

I expected/ hoped that the 49ers would bring in an experienced, successful European Director of Football with a strong track record for this vital 2nd season EPL summer window.

Alas, it is not to be. and instead we worryingly still just have Head of Recruitment Alex Davies and former youth academy geezer Adam Underwood to recruit and move on players effectively and successfully.



We lost, in the past year, Nicky Hammond and Gretar Steinsson. Their experience is greatly missed, imo

Leeds United owners can do much better on these issues, and defo need to do so going forward!

Aimo.

02 Jul 2026 21:10:00
Both of them had left before 1st July last year, so we're not overly involved in last summer's recruitment, Baz.
I think we did Ok last summer in the main (Perri a definite miss) , with Okafor, Stach, Justin and DCL being very good, and others being decent, such as Gudmundsson.

03 Jul 2026 13:05:41
The faces in the recruitment team are effectively puppets - they do not make the decisions on who we buy; that is all done based on data now. This info landed us some great players at decent prices last season, yet we are willing to lose faith based on whether one transfer succeeds or fails? How fickle the fans! If by any chance we don't get Wilson, we will have other targets, don't worry.

03 Jul 2026 13:08:59
The faces in the recruitment team are effectively puppets - they do not make the decisions on who we buy; that is all done based on data now. This info landed us some great players at decent prices last season, yet are we willing to lose faith based on whether one transfer succeeds or fails? How fickle the fans! If by any chance we don't get Wilson, they will have other targets.

Don't worry.

03 Jul 2026 14:12:45
Puppets, Alf? .. that might explain why Leeds recruitment aren't good at moving on players and attaining good transfer fees.

Skilled, savvy peeps attain this.. Data on a computer can't do that.

03 Jul 2026 16:10:10
It worked last year didn't it, Baz?

03 Jul 2026 16:29:10
Not really, Alf.. certainly in terms of moving players on / attaining transfer fees..

Exhibit A: Joel Piroe for starters ..Last summer was the optimum window to sell JP.

03 Jul 2026 16:45:17
JP didn't want to leave. We had offers, but he is under contract, and that means, without cooperation (or buying out his contract) , we can't just tell him to get lost. Honestly, it beggars belief how much info is out there that you ignore Baz because it doesn't fit your agenda.

03 Jul 2026 17:38:01
Yes, JP wanted to stay and play little to football.

Point remains, Leeds United aren't great sellers. Paraag admits it too.

03 Jul 2026 20:38:55
We were lumbered with a load of tosh on high wages due to the previous regime. Can't sell if nobody is buying.

Back to same old negative Baz after a brief respite

02 Jul 2026 07:39:08
{Ed's Note - MK Scouser has posted a new article entitled, A Squad Deep Dive as Iraola Takes Charge

01 Jul 2026 20:48:57
Anyone else concerned that Spurs and Brighton buying and unveiling big money signings and we are yet to unveil Wilson who is free?

01 Jul 2026 22:40:18
Worries me more that it's meant to be the same rules for everyone in the EPL, and yet Spuds can spend £180 million plus on just Two players.

We are having to sell first, just to scrape together £80 million for our whole season spend!

01 Jul 2026 22:50:52
My thoughts exactly this morning when I heard about Tonali. 200 mill on a pair, and it's only Spurs.

Yet here we are with we oh "We're Larry Flynt" line already.

02 Jul 2026 06:56:54
Absolutely. £185m on 2 players, while our entire budget is a rumoured £80m, is alarming.
The gulf is alarming & worrying.
I'd take 17th next season, given that those who were around us last season are clearly not going to mess around in the transfer market.

Sadly, we have to, given our tiny budget.
I guess we have to hope those coming up do not do what we and Sunderland did.

02 Jul 2026 08:14:40
Plus, Spurs spent big money on Van Hecke, although they'll get some back if Vuscovic goes to Brighton. Vuscovic will be Brighton's fifth signing. They certainly are not messing around.
Rumours that Newcastle are considering making an offer for Archie Gray. After selling Tonali and Gordon, they've got plenty of cash to strengthen in several areas.

02 Jul 2026 09:30:17
And Spurs linked with El Kroupi.

02 Jul 2026 09:42:12
Why would they go to Spurs. Surely they could get euros elsewhere. 🤔

02 Jul 2026 11:12:19
Shows exactly what it's all about.

Coin.

02 Jul 2026 11:32:26
I'm more interested in how Spurs are financing this? They are £120m in debt, with an estimated income of around £50/55m a year. Their spending over the last couple of seasons has been ridiculous. How have they not fallen foul of the old PSR rules?

02 Jul 2026 11:39:19
Sorry, a net debt of £830m..

02 Jul 2026 11:47:44
Spuds have a net debt of £830 million, you say, Finch. Woah.

I will be very, very surprised if Tonali agrees to join Spuds. Surely he can do much better!

02 Jul 2026 12:01:35
Baz reports are it's agreed, and he's flying in for a medical.

The worry is Spurs signing a Championship midfielder for £85m will naturally inflate the Championship market now as well.

Think we need to be shopping around Europe, South America, Asia and Africa now.

Or we could hope that Fernandes makes it 3 relegations in a row after Southampton & Wet spam.

02 Jul 2026 12:14:47
The £275K a week the clincher then, Dave. Money money money. 💰

02 Jul 2026 14:02:24
It absolutely stinks, lads, to be honest.

02 Jul 2026 14:04:47
Finch, Spurs' income is more like 500 million than 50.

02 Jul 2026 15:35:11
That makes more sense. I just double-checked, & it is over £500m per year.
Still, the debt from the stadium, and the over inflated price of the players they are buying, surely makes it unsustainable. I so wish they'd have gone down last season.

02 Jul 2026 15:39:48
Spurs article

02 Jul 2026 16:07:09
Spurs' income 24/25 was £565m:
TV - 127
Match receipts - 126
UEFA - 34
Commercial - 277

Our income was £137m. TV was 47, match receipts 32, and commercial 58. Admittedly, we were in the Championship, but if we'd been in the PL, only the TV would be similar. Our match receipts and commercial would be far less.

At a guess, if we were both in the PL that season, with UEFA income excluded, our income would be somewhere around 50% of Spurs' figure.



The difference is the commercial income. Spurs' ground has become a major venue for sporting events (NFL) and concerts. Last year, they had 16, which generated about £60m income. This coming year, the council, Haringey, will allow up to 30, which is going to add another £50m plus to the coffers - £110m plus in total. It makes money, but it winds the supporters up.

02 Jul 2026 16:09:14
Spurs' debt is irrelevant to the new SCR rules. All that matters is their revenue (sales income) . This will be in the region of £550-£600m. The rules allow them to spend up to 85% of this on player costs & manager salary (they are at the 85% level, as they're not in UEFA competition next year) without any penalty.


That means spending of between £468m and £510m on player and manager costs. Compare that to Leeds, who will have between £200 to £250m revenue, so will have between £170m and £213m to spend on player and manager costs. That's how the rules work. Don't shoot the messenger.

02 Jul 2026 16:45:17
Good knowledge, Yorker. Depressing reading, but still good knowledge. : )

02 Jul 2026 17:15:20
Increased stadium capacity much needed to help our numbers.

02 Jul 2026 17:21:42
Sorry, Chris, I didn't see your post, or they crossed whilst I was typing. I think they're both making the same point.

02 Jul 2026 18:18:21
Spuds owners have huge amounts of money. As long as they are allowed to spend it under the rules, they will have no issues at all finding the money.

02 Jul 2026 19:38:57
The owners of Spurs have been criticised for several seasons for not pumping money into the club, but they have built a new high-capacity stadium.
As mentioned earlier by Yorker, the debt doesn't matter. What is important is the size of your ground, how much you charge for season tickets, where you finish in the league (which might mean European competitions) , and your ability to generate income from commercial sources such as concerts, sponsorship, etc.

Spurs may have debt, but they generate income.
We're probably somewhere on a par with Brighton, but way ahead of Bournemouth.
The trick is to manage to stay in the PL for a few seasons, improve the commercial side, develop your ground, increase capacity, and be good at buying and selling. The three B's are adept at that - Brighton, Bournemouth and Brentford. Those three have good data analyst departments.

03 Jul 2026 12:59:54
The ownership model has changed recently with Levy being bought out, etc. Plus, the shift from PSR to SCR has made a big difference to what Spuds are able to spend, as it gets rid of the 3 year past accounts element.

01 Jul 2026 10:36:05
Question is if we will get as far as facing Mexico? Our toothless wonders could go out on penalties to DRC - not long before we find out though.

01 Jul 2026 12:31:37
That is exactly the worst case scenario I'm kind of expecting '70!

01 Jul 2026 12:46:28
Yep could easily happen. We have been tragic so far and there are no easy games. Hopefully, we start to find out form.

01 Jul 2026 14:16:27
Hopefully, we get what we deserve. A mauling. So many teams have entertained and scored spectacular goals. We just bore. Only team in the World Cup that has the dehydration break in their match highlights. Move on. Nothing to see here.

01 Jul 2026 14:31:48
Bit harsh, guys - I think Germany, Holland, Italy, and Uruguay would swap with us right now. No prizes for winning your group games in style. No excuse for not beating DRC, though - their best player, Wissa, can barely get in the Newcastle team. I expect a much improved display and result.

01 Jul 2026 19:16:36
Well, as the Duke of Wellington famously said after the Battle of Waterloo, "that was a damned close run thing." The most appropriate phrase I can think of is "lucky, lucky, lucky." And to Harry Kane, sorry, that was not a penalty; you were on your way down before the goalie touched you.

01 Jul 2026 19:20:50
XG 2.04 v 0.8 - seems like a fair result to me, rather than lucky lucky lucky.

01 Jul 2026 19:37:03
With JR on everything.

01 Jul 2026 20:00:48
England being carried by Kane. If DRC had made it 2 - 0, it could have been curtains. Big improvement required against Mexico.

01 Jul 2026 20:13:11
Kane is a bit like Sheringham. No pace, but his brain is two steps ahead of the opposition. Remarkable season for him. No wonder Barcelona are interested in signing him, but seemingly Kane and his family are happy in Munich.

01 Jul 2026 21:03:10
We were woeful imo. Their keeper played a blinder, and they looked to take the game to us, which was refreshing. Bellingham, Kane, and that Irish man, Rice, are carrying us. The rest have zero bite, and zero creativity, and our defence takes the breath away for the wrong reasons!

02 Jul 2026 10:17:11
How contradictory is that? We were woeful, yet we forced their goalie into playing a blinder to keep them in the game. We were woeful for 23 minutes, then TT tore into them, and we were by far the better side for the last 3 quarters. Not a Gordon fan, but thought he was excellent when he came on - lovely weighted cross for the first, rode 2 tackles, and slipped a lovely ball to Kane for the second rather than taking the easy option and playing backwards as Gashford did for the first hour.

02 Jul 2026 12:31:51
So, we should be the better side! It's on that basis that my "woeful" descriptor stands! Probably, a billion quids worth of "talent" on that oak, and only 3 of them showed anything! Yes, their keeper had a blinder, but we were still crap!

01 Jul 2026 09:59:16
West Ham certainly know how to get top dollar for their players even after a relegation.
85 million for Fernandes!

01 Jul 2026 12:47:00
That's what can happen when you hold all the cards, and there is lots of interest.

01 Jul 2026 14:17:21
Coulda got more interest in Struijk if we waited a bit.

01 Jul 2026 14:34:52
Read the club announcement, Aus. We needed a sale before today for PSR reasons, so we had no cards by the sound of it!

01 Jul 2026 19:03:36
Can only be Leeds Utd.

01 Jul 2026 07:19:36
Arsenal looking to snap up Mez on a free. Good luck to him, I say!

01 Jul 2026 07:56:06
Wow. That's weird.

01 Jul 2026 10:45:56
I always said there's a good GK in there somewhere. It just needs to be brought out, mebbe Arse will be more successful than us doing so. He was unfairly blamed for some errors that were not his fault, and the defenders (especially Joe Rodon) lost confidence in him, so he had to go. A fresh start is just what he needs.

01 Jul 2026 11:49:31
Unfairly blamed, JR ??
He made some right howlers!

01 Jul 2026 12:17:05
I really hope I'm wrong but I can't see Mez playing at a high level anymore.

01 Jul 2026 12:26:08
Read my words. Unfairly blamed for some errors that were not his fault, some, not all.

01 Jul 2026 19:05:58
Mez will show us what we're missing. I like him, hope he gets on well.

01 Jul 2026 07:06:59
So if you’ve all seen the report I’d guess you’re as confused or pee’d off as I am.

The official line is we had to sell Pascal by 30/ 06/ 25 to comply with 25/ 26 PSR requirements!

So that's the narrative they are spinning to the fan base, is it?

If that were true then why the hell were they trying to sign JSL for upto £40m in January?

All lies aren’t we, yet again.



I see this summer as being

We tried FC again.

Some of the statements and decisions seem idiotic.

Why are we thinking of spending £30m on a keeper? 🤯

They say we have £80/ 100m summer budget.

We need
A keeper
2 x LCB
1x LB/ LWB
1x10
1x 9.

01 Jul 2026 09:48:23
I was thinking the exact same, Dave. Something doesn't quite add up when you think about the JSL and now Struick deal?

01 Jul 2026 11:02:44
They have a plan, it is what it is. It hasn't, and won't change, based on a speech they've announced after they've sold a player.

It makes sense to sell a player for X and announce it doesn't help us financially, as it's only making sure last year's books work, as opposed to yeah, it's great we got X; it'll help us spend more on players this year.

Most clubs will then want an extra digit or 2, knowing they have money.

01 Jul 2026 11:48:40
The point being made was, if we'd signed Jsl for even, say, 35 million, we would need a few more sales to get in line with PSR.
Gnonto, Piroe or Rama would have to be sold asap. Two of the three, anyway.

01 Jul 2026 12:49:51
Yes, you are right, Corkey, we would have had to sell more, or different players, to be compliant. Maybe Amps, for example. I'm not sure what the difficulty is here, understanding?

01 Jul 2026 13:18:06
Corky Alf, that was my exact point.

From the club, why say anything other than Pascal refused a new contract and wanted to leave?

They constantly trip themselves up all the time.

It's made me massively lower my expectation for this transfer window.



Let's hope it's not a repeat of the last time we were in the Prem and we dropped the ball badly and failed to kick on after a decent first season.

01 Jul 2026 14:21:49
Agree above. Except love. Their vocal and sums don't add up. They are out and out lying. If we'd bought Larsen would mean more desperate sales. And was the supposed 100 kitty before or after struik sale. That's Americans doing what they do best. bull.

01 Jul 2026 15:29:10
The club have said in their statement that survival was the priority, and, if achieved, it would require player sales to comply with financial rules. Conspiracy theorise all you like, but the explanation given makes perfect sense. All you have to do is pay attention.

01 Jul 2026 23:09:06
They have stated quite clearly, for those that care to listen, that the new rules mean we actually have fewer options with the transfer budget this year than last year. They also said we would have to sell more players this year than last year.



I suspect that it is likely any new recruits will be earning far more than those departing, making squaring the circle harder this year.

01 Jul 2026 00:17:14
Just finished watching France v Sweden and it's given me an idea.

We sell all of our current squad (the lot, all 25/ 26 of them) .

We buy the entire French squad.

We win the Premier League by Christmas, plus the League and FA Cup etc.

We break every scoring record in the book in doing so.

We qualify for the Champions League and are gifted a spot at the next World Club Championship.

There are, unfortunately, a couple of major flaws in my idea -

We would bankrupt the club as well as the entire 49ers Enterprise (several times over) simply trying to buy those players.



And secondly, the amount of financial rules on over-spending we would break would see us start the following season in the 10th or 11th tier of English football!

But my God it would be worth it - what a team! The frightening thing is in the second half especially, Sweden didn't really do anything wrong! The French were just that good!

I do hope there's no one from Man City reading this because they could probably afford to buy the French squad and would never be found guilty of breaking any rules in doing so. :)

01 Jul 2026 06:52:59
France were clearly the better team and deserved to win, but they also got very lenient treatment from the Dutch referee. I counted at least 3 incidents, which, to my untrained eye, merited the award of a yellow card.

01 Jul 2026 07:35:07
Swedish defenders were shocking. Stood there like IKEA wardrobes!
Get stuck into em!
England v France Final??

01 Jul 2026 08:56:14
Can't see England getting past Mexico in the Azteca to be honest. Hope we do, but they have lost 2 of 89 in that venue.

01 Jul 2026 10:07:29
This WC is utter Ben White. Commercialism has ruined this tournament for me, and I have watched practically none of it.
Uzbekistan & Iran in World Cup??

Once, there was a time it was the best teams in the world, now it's ruined, sadly.

01 Jul 2026 10:53:27
How come Mexico have managed to work it that they play every game up to the last 16 on home turf, all bar one of them at the Azteca?

01 Jul 2026 12:51:00
France are truly next level. The team to beat, imo. Another flaw is that it probably wouldn't meet the home grown quota.

01 Jul 2026 14:24:11
France are next level, Alf. Extreme quality. It would be a major shock if they don't stroll this. Uzb have the best goal in the tournament, in my eyes, Chris. There have been many quality strikes, mind.

01 Jul 2026 14:38:14
JR, isn't that called home advantage? See WC 66 and EC96?

01 Jul 2026 15:30:31
Host nation, JR. Canada recently became the only host nation to play a game away from home soil, I believe.

30 Jun 2026 20:18:11
For me, Côte d'Ivoire v Norway was the best match so far. Two evenly matched teams neither 'parking the bus' but both trying to win by playing football. Well done Norway, and commiserations to Côte d'Ivoire.

30 Jun 2026 21:25:44
Ivory Coast no?
Those elephant killers should not be allowed to change their name.

30 Jun 2026 21:59:48
It's the same name, just in French - right about the Elephants tho.

30 Jun 2026 22:31:56
Did they not try to change their name years back? To lose the ivory bit?

30 Jun 2026 22:56:19
They were originally a French colony, and got pissed off with the use of the English version of their name, and so decreed that only the French version was to be used. The meaning is the same, so clearly they feel no shame about their historic elephant slaughter.

01 Jul 2026 12:52:59
Yes, all countries should be forced to use the name we decide, in English. Bustards - how dare they?