Llorente

[WTF11]

Club can't be stupid for as much as people deride Llorente he did fairly well for Roma and in his first season for us he was very good, he is a 7-8m player so if we are being offered 3m or 4m we can't look stupid and take low offers

"Club can't be stupid".......and if we examine our stellar performance over the last three seasons, we look like we know what we're doing? I think not. Let's decline offers and have yet another want-away warming the bench (or god forbid even worse, actually having to be played because we don't have any alternative)

[norfolk white]

Don’t know who’s more stupid, someone offering 3.8 million, or us for turning it down.

[Monaco_Totty]

"Club can't be stupid".......and if we examine our stellar performance over the last three seasons, we look like we know what we're doing? I think not. Let's decline offers and have yet another want-away warming the bench (or god forbid even worse, actually having to be played because we don't have any alternative)

Why you so critical of clubs relegation clause?

C'mon, it's now commonplace for all teams to protect themselves against the financial hit of relegation by inserting blanket wage cuts of around 50/60% into every contract.
So in return the Agent of the player tends to now ask for a much-reduced release clause as a makeweight.

Archie Gray ?
Nothing wrong with a minimum release clause. So if you make an offer of this amount it simply cannot be refused by the club, end of.

On the relegation release clause, if the club is relegated from its current division, you can make an offer for the player at this value, again it cannot be refused.

For sure, my point of view is 'objective' via verifiable information based on facts & evidence.
But i also fully understand the 'subjective' information or perspectives based on feelings, opinions & emotions of football fans too.

FWIW my younger brother opted for short term deal, to protect his career being stifled.
Ultimately he agreed to a "fee-structured" deal via a release clause that stipulated a pre determined transfer fee that any club would have to pay to acquire him.
This fee was set at an "agreed" discounted rate compared to his validated market value.

To counter that requirement his club added a specific clause to restrict him from joining another named club in the same Ligue, which in effect prevents him from directly moving to a local competitor.

The reality is Leeds are like many clubs who having spent heavily on players in past seasons who agreed to lower "release clauses" in the event they dropped into the Championship & likewise added the same option with loan-clauses too, which is also standard practice across Europe leagues too.

I don't have a problem with players & clubs inserting a provision in employment contracts with regards to potential relegations or promotions of a clubs future.
My employees have a health proviso within my work contract which is great for both parties including my assistance doggie too.

For clubs regularly operating in the lower regions of the league the relegation clause is an effective tool to protect themselves from very high salary burdens as a result of relegation whoever the player maybe.
So the inclusion of a relegation clause in a players contract can benefit the player & can protect his career by not being contractually obliged to play in a lower league on a reduced wage.

I loved the concept of one club footballers but do recall reading the Graham Souness autobiography where he said;
'I was mercenary as well, I was captain of Liverpool, we had just won the European Cup and the league and the league cup in 1984 and I went off to play in Italy because Italy was where all the best players in the world were and the thing that drove me there more than anything else, apart from that challenge was I was getting a lot more money,' said Souness.

So yeah, just saying

[WTF11]

Why you so critical of clubs relegation clause?

C'mon, it's now commonplace for all teams to protect themselves against the financial hit of relegation by inserting blanket wage cuts of around 50/60% into every contract.
So in return the Agent of the player tends to now ask for a much-reduced release clause as a makeweight.

Archie Gray ?
Nothing wrong with a minimum release clause. So if you make an offer of this amount it simply cannot be refused by the club, end of.

On the relegation release clause, if the club is relegated from its current division, you can make an offer for the player at this value, again it cannot be refused.

For sure, my point of view is 'objective' via verifiable information based on facts & evidence.
But i also fully understand the 'subjective' information or perspectives based on feelings, opinions & emotions of football fans too.

FWIW my younger brother opted for short term deal, to protect his career being stifled.
Ultimately he agreed to a "fee-structured" deal via a release clause that stipulated a pre determined transfer fee that any club would have to pay to acquire him.
This fee was set at an "agreed" discounted rate compared to his validated market value.

To counter that requirement his club added a specific clause to restrict him from joining another named club in the same Ligue, which in effect prevents him from directly moving to a local competitor.

The reality is Leeds are like many clubs who having spent heavily on players in past seasons who agreed to lower "release clauses" in the event they dropped into the Championship & likewise added the same option with loan-clauses too, which is also standard practice across Europe leagues too.

I don't have a problem with players & clubs inserting a provision in employment contracts with regards to potential relegations or promotions of a clubs future.
My employees have a health proviso within my work contract which is great for both parties including my assistance doggie too.

For clubs regularly operating in the lower regions of the league the relegation clause is an effective tool to protect themselves from very high salary burdens as a result of relegation whoever the player maybe.
So the inclusion of a relegation clause in a players contract can benefit the player & can protect his career by not being contractually obliged to play in a lower league on a reduced wage.

I loved the concept of one club footballers but do recall reading the Graham Souness autobiography where he said;
'I was mercenary as well, I was captain of Liverpool, we had just won the European Cup and the league and the league cup in 1984 and I went off to play in Italy because Italy was where all the best players in the world were and the thing that drove me there more than anything else, apart from that challenge was I was getting a lot more money,' said Souness.

So yeah, just saying

Not quite sure what prompted that? I, like many (most?) of those who have an opinion on Llorente would prefer him gone, almost irrespective of what offer LUFC might receive rather than have him back to join the likes of Arronsson, Kristensen, Wober etc etc warming the bench or simply occupying training ground space.

Nothing to do with contractual clauses, relegation-related or otherwise, or their worth, simply a matter of not wanting more deadweight than we already have, accruing cost to the club and adding little or no value.

[joellufcprice]

"Club can't be stupid".......and if we examine our stellar performance over the last three seasons, we look like we know what we're doing? I think not. Let's decline offers and have yet another want-away warming the bench (or god forbid even worse, actually having to be played because we don't have any alternative)

49ers weren't in charge the 2 season before last.......so what are you on about.

He won't play for us anymore, we don't have to sell to the first bidder, plenty of clubs will be interested in him. Move on, inject some happiness into ur life brother ur always moaning

[WTF11]

49ers weren't in charge the 2 season before last.......so what are you on about.

He won't play for us anymore, we don't have to sell to the first bidder, plenty of clubs will be interested in him. Move on, inject some happiness into ur life brother ur always moaning

49ers Enterprises were a major stakeholder in LUFC from 2018, when they acquired an 18% stake in the club, increasing to 44% in 2021, and were clearly instrumental in major decisions regarding the sacking and replacement of Bielsa with Marsch and the "investment" of around £150m in players such as Arronsson etc, taking full ownership nearly 12 months ago. To suggest that they were not involved in the process of appointing Marsch and the disasterous transfer to the club of just about any player previously coached by Marsh, played for a Red Bull franchise or of American descent is frankly delusional. And NONE of those "investments" have been of benefit to the club and I am by far from the only one who thinks so.

How do you know he won't play for us any more, or Aarronsson, or Wober, or Kristensen etc etc? Even if you are right, all that means is that the club will continue to pi55 away money paying for sh1te players who should nebver have been acquired in the first place.

Once LUFC start to act like a club that knows its ar5e from its elbow, I'll be much happier. Currently, selling star assets and potential stars of the future illustrates the absolutely abysmal standard of those running the club.

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

49ers Enterprises were a major stakeholder in LUFC from 2018, when they acquired an 18% stake in the club, increasing to 44% in 2021, and were clearly instrumental in major decisions regarding the sacking and replacement of Bielsa with Marsch and the "investment" of around £150m in players such as Arronsson etc, taking full ownership nearly 12 months ago. To suggest that they were not involved in the process of appointing Marsch and the disasterous transfer to the club of just about any player previously coached by Marsh, played for a Red Bull franchise or of American descent is frankly delusional. And NONE of those "investments" have been of benefit to the club and I am by far from the only one who thinks so.

How do you know he won't play for us any more, or Aarronsson, or Wober, or Kristensen etc etc? Even if you are right, all that means is that the club will continue to pi55 away money paying for sh1te players who should nebver have been acquired in the first place.

Once LUFC start to act like a club that knows its ar5e from its elbow, I'll be much happier. Currently, selling star assets and potential stars of the future illustrates the absolutely abysmal standard of those running the club.

Some of the clubs you have cited in the past - Brighton and Brentford - they have a model where if the right offer comes in for a player then they sell. Brentford have successfully done that for a good 10 to 15 years.

Trying seeing some positives for a change - it might even make you smile.

[Monaco_Totty]

Not quite sure what prompted that? I, like many (most?) of those who have an opinion on Llorente would prefer him gone, almost irrespective of what offer LUFC might receive rather than have him back to join the likes of Arronsson, Kristensen, Wober etc etc warming the bench or simply occupying training ground space.

Nothing to do with contractual clauses, relegation-related or otherwise, or their worth, simply a matter of not wanting more deadweight than we already have, accruing cost to the club and adding little or no value.

Seen lots of Llorente games for Roma on tv & he looked a very seasoned pro in all of them, so cannot understand why they won't pay the fee required.

Llorente is defo a centre-back with a vast range of strengths, both in & out of possession - has also been used as an adaptable full-back too.
He's sure provided a safety net sweeping up as the last line with his ability & pace to cover for others & still shows a calm tackling style under pressure - he recycles possession well with good passing vision via composure under pressure in the tough tactical Italian league, although their tempo be slower than Championship football.

Just sad that after a decent first season with us injury cut down his opportunities.
Maybe one that Farke could benefit from having in the squad depending on the final player ER revolving door scenario being shut ?
But obviously another matter what each party requires from one another to settle first. 😊

Could complement Rodon, as Rodon has a decent right foot & can also pass with his left.
Llotentes pace is very valuable as Rodon & Pascal Struijk just dont have it - attributes that Farke likes, ability wise, for sure, so we'll see.

At the end of the day i just want the best players lined up to win football matches with the correct mental head set on.

[Billyni]

Can’t believe he’s not playing in the euros.

[Monaco_Totty]

Can’t believe he’s not playing in the euros.

Dont start - i'm having a bad parking day ! 🤣
Walked miles as all bays in town too small.

Llorente was in Spanish squad until Nov '23 !

Following a head injury sustained against Feyenoord in Feb '24, the severity of the injury was greater than initially anticipated & Llorente(30) faced an extended period on the sidelines as a result.

A quick glance at the Spain current centre backs & full backs tells you why he a'int playing Billy. 🤗