A bit early! We have no idea if he signed late last night or not. I’m sure the news will come out today.
Part of me wants us to keep him even if we have broken PSR rules. Adversity has never bothered us in the past.
Apparently, if the 'intention' paperwork was 'started' yesterday, for PSR purposes it is classed as a 'near miss' meaning it can still be included in the figures for the year ending yesterday. Think we'll get something confirmed along these lines today/tomorrow, sadly.
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 15 minutes ago
Apparently, if the 'intention' paperwork was 'started' yesterday, for PSR purposes it is classed as a 'near miss' meaning it can still be included in the figures for the year ending yesterday. Think we'll get something confirmed along these lines today/tomorrow, sadly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. A few more to come to light from different clubs yet I think. Sad but I think he will go unless the owners get cold feet.
Dont see why any issue, if the deal gets done, they will include it in 23/24 accounts.
Interestingly
Gnonto and rutter are styling training gear
Sommerville isnt
comment by LIW We’re Going Up As f@ck@ing Champions (U8453)
posted 3 minutes ago
Dont see why any issue, if the deal gets done, they will include it in 23/24 accounts.
Interestingly
Gnonto and rutter are styling training gear
Sommerville isnt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the rules around this?
comment by LIW We’re Going Up As f@ck@ing Champions (U8453)
posted 11 minutes ago
Dont see why any issue, if the deal gets done, they will include it in 23/24 accounts.
Interestingly
Gnonto and rutter are styling training gear
Sommerville isnt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://shop.leedsunited.com/p01trqtr24101-24-25-training-1-4-zip-any
Looks like am talking Rubbish
Sommerville is there but can not see him being leed player come September
I’m confused now. Reports suggest Spurs are hopeful of reaching an agreement with Leeds and Archie, which suggests the paperwork wasn’t submitted yesterday and no agreement has been reached.
So if we sell him today, it’s in the new accounting period. If the powers that be don’t accept it then we could be selling him and still get sanctioned. Didn’t Forest or Everton lose a case like this?
I would have thought that keeping hold of Summerville would be much harder than Gray with regards to the willingness of the player.
Summerville is older, more experienced, better at this stage, and comes across as more selfish/arrogant (Also part of why he's so good). He also has no ties to Leeds.
We also have good depth in Summerville's position.
In an ideal world, balancing the books through sales of Gnonto & Meslier on top of Roca, Llorente, Kristensen & possibly Gruev & Kamara would be lovely.
But we don't know the financial situation and it sounds like the 49ers have been lying to us about the PnS situation all season, we also have don't know how genuine the interest is in most of the above.
Get us a CB on loan (Gilchrist at Chelsea or Phillips at Spurs), a rb on loan/free (Sessegnon risk).
Play Ampadu & Gray in the midfield.
Rutter, Aaronson, Summerville, James all attacking mid options.
Piroe, Bamford, Joseph up top.
comment by Stoopo (U4707)
posted 5 minutes ago
I’m confused now. Reports suggest Spurs are hopeful of reaching an agreement with Leeds and Archie, which suggests the paperwork wasn’t submitted yesterday and no agreement has been reached.
So if we sell him today, it’s in the new accounting period. If the powers that be don’t accept it then we could be selling him and still get sanctioned. Didn’t Forest or Everton lose a case like this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know the rules governing this situation. But would like to think the club do, or at least their lawyers do.
If selling him doesn't save us from punishment then don't do it. End of.
Totally bemused by all of this. Wish we had some clarity on exactly where we stand re: PSR - Surely if you are the 49ers, determined to get to the EPL pronto, the last thing you want is a points deduction in the EFL? - Remember we as a club have history where upper limits of punishment are concerned.
comment by The Very Rev Wilko (U21072)
posted 10 minutes ago
Totally bemused by all of this. Wish we had some clarity on exactly where we stand re: PSR - Surely if you are the 49ers, determined to get to the EPL pronto, the last thing you want is a points deduction in the EFL? - Remember we as a club have history where upper limits of punishment are concerned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst we are not safe, we are safe, I cannot see how the EFL can impose a greater penalty on us than on any other team.
As I see it its our job to be fans its the 49ers job to run the business. After the final whistle blew at wembley it was clear to me we have to go through some pain, and us fans will not like some of the pain......
Having said that all decent business people keep their cards close to their chests, makes absolute sense. Being transparent will only damage their bargaining position.
So far they appear to be doing the majority of things right so I will back them. Much rather have this lot than the social media buffoons previously.
Let them get on with the job and see where we get to, I believe they "get us" as a club.
Fans will never have clarity on the inner workings of the business as that is not our part of the contract.
Frustration is part of being a fan and this time of the year is a nightmare for fans so we just have to live with it..........
comment by Stoopo (U4707)
posted 42 minutes ago
I’m confused now. Reports suggest Spurs are hopeful of reaching an agreement with Leeds and Archie, which suggests the paperwork wasn’t submitted yesterday and no agreement has been reached.
So if we sell him today, it’s in the new accounting period. If the powers that be don’t accept it then we could be selling him and still get sanctioned. Didn’t Forest or Everton lose a case like this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the transfer is done in the next week or two, there enough evidence to say the transfer was ongoing and could from an accounting view, be placed in June accounts.
Which player did Everton sell in this way.
Forest ?
Johnson was sold 1st of September, hard to put that previous year
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
Apparently, if the 'intention' paperwork was 'started' yesterday, for PSR purposes it is classed as a 'near miss' meaning it can still be included in the figures for the year ending yesterday. Think we'll get something confirmed along these lines today/tomorrow, sadly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I reading this too simplistically, is the intention sufficient.
We offered Gray up for sale, had one suitor coming forward in time, Brentford, but at the last minute they revealed they would only pay in instalments which doesn't meet the requirements of the PSR regulations and therefore we pulled out because we would sell an asset without still satisfying the regulations. Would that be counted as a "near miss"?
comment by Dennis - Always Leeds - Always Loyal. (U23086)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
Apparently, if the 'intention' paperwork was 'started' yesterday, for PSR purposes it is classed as a 'near miss' meaning it can still be included in the figures for the year ending yesterday. Think we'll get something confirmed along these lines today/tomorrow, sadly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I reading this too simplistically, is the intention sufficient.
We offered Gray up for sale, had one suitor coming forward in time, Brentford, but at the last minute they revealed they would only pay in instalments which doesn't meet the requirements of the PSR regulations and therefore we pulled out because we would sell an asset without still satisfying the regulations. Would that be counted as a "near miss"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
or to put it more bluntly what is a near miss?
comment by Outwood White (U9610)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
Its Summerville! LOL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shh don't tell LOW this, it will upset his whole world order.
comment by Dennis - Always Leeds - Always Loyal. (U23086)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
Apparently, if the 'intention' paperwork was 'started' yesterday, for PSR purposes it is classed as a 'near miss' meaning it can still be included in the figures for the year ending yesterday. Think we'll get something confirmed along these lines today/tomorrow, sadly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I reading this too simplistically, is the intention sufficient.
We offered Gray up for sale, had one suitor coming forward in time, Brentford, but at the last minute they revealed they would only pay in instalments which doesn't meet the requirements of the PSR regulations and therefore we pulled out because we would sell an asset without still satisfying the regulations. Would that be counted as a "near miss"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paying in installments would make no difference to PSR.
So if that really was the reason for rejecting then that would suggest a cash flow problem with the 49ers. Which would be very worrying.
Rodon is coming the other way it looks like
Read that medical been passed
Just read that Kieran Maguire is confident that Leeds are ok with regards to PSR and that it is more likely that this sale is to fund the installments owed towards previous transfer fees.
There is nothing stopping the 49ers loaning the clubs the funds to cover these fees and therefore if this is the case and the 49ers aren't going to fund the club as much as possible then this is far more worrying.
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 2 minutes ago
Just read that Kieran Maguire is confident that Leeds are ok with regards to PSR and that it is more likely that this sale is to fund the installments owed towards previous transfer fees.
There is nothing stopping the 49ers loaning the clubs the funds to cover these fees and therefore if this is the case and the 49ers aren't going to fund the club as much as possible then this is far more worrying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is next year's PSR that is the bigger worry
comment by EnfieldLeeds88 (U10248)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 2 minutes ago
Just read that Kieran Maguire is confident that Leeds are ok with regards to PSR and that it is more likely that this sale is to fund the installments owed towards previous transfer fees.
There is nothing stopping the 49ers loaning the clubs the funds to cover these fees and therefore if this is the case and the 49ers aren't going to fund the club as much as possible then this is far more worrying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is next year's PSR that is the bigger worry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then there would be no urgency with the sale.
"Dennis - Always Leeds - Always Loyal. (U23086)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
Apparently, if the 'intention' paperwork was 'started' yesterday, for PSR purposes it is classed as a 'near miss' meaning it can still be included in the figures for the year ending yesterday. Think we'll get something confirmed along these lines today/tomorrow, sadly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I reading this too simplistically, is the intention sufficient.
We offered Gray up for sale, had one suitor coming forward in time, Brentford, but at the last minute they revealed they would only pay in instalments which doesn't meet the requirements of the PSR regulations and therefore we pulled out because we would sell an asset without still satisfying the regulations. Would that be counted as a "near miss"?"
Did we put him up for sale or did Brentford make an inquiry?..
And Spurs were also there in time!..
But the 49ers holding out, it might be a case of them not worrying about what might be coming, I'm sure they've more of an idea than anyone around here, so trust they're not like the people that helped get us in this mess and are after the best price they can get!..
Sign in if you want to comment
So what happens now?
Page 1 of 3
posted on 1/7/24
A bit early! We have no idea if he signed late last night or not. I’m sure the news will come out today.
Part of me wants us to keep him even if we have broken PSR rules. Adversity has never bothered us in the past.
posted on 1/7/24
Apparently, if the 'intention' paperwork was 'started' yesterday, for PSR purposes it is classed as a 'near miss' meaning it can still be included in the figures for the year ending yesterday. Think we'll get something confirmed along these lines today/tomorrow, sadly.
posted on 1/7/24
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 15 minutes ago
Apparently, if the 'intention' paperwork was 'started' yesterday, for PSR purposes it is classed as a 'near miss' meaning it can still be included in the figures for the year ending yesterday. Think we'll get something confirmed along these lines today/tomorrow, sadly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. A few more to come to light from different clubs yet I think. Sad but I think he will go unless the owners get cold feet.
posted on 1/7/24
Dont see why any issue, if the deal gets done, they will include it in 23/24 accounts.
Interestingly
Gnonto and rutter are styling training gear
Sommerville isnt
posted on 1/7/24
comment by LIW We’re Going Up As f@ck@ing Champions (U8453)
posted 3 minutes ago
Dont see why any issue, if the deal gets done, they will include it in 23/24 accounts.
Interestingly
Gnonto and rutter are styling training gear
Sommerville isnt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the rules around this?
posted on 1/7/24
comment by LIW We’re Going Up As f@ck@ing Champions (U8453)
posted 11 minutes ago
Dont see why any issue, if the deal gets done, they will include it in 23/24 accounts.
Interestingly
Gnonto and rutter are styling training gear
Sommerville isnt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://shop.leedsunited.com/p01trqtr24101-24-25-training-1-4-zip-any
posted on 1/7/24
Looks like am talking Rubbish
Sommerville is there but can not see him being leed player come September
posted on 1/7/24
Its Summerville! LOL
posted on 1/7/24
I’m confused now. Reports suggest Spurs are hopeful of reaching an agreement with Leeds and Archie, which suggests the paperwork wasn’t submitted yesterday and no agreement has been reached.
So if we sell him today, it’s in the new accounting period. If the powers that be don’t accept it then we could be selling him and still get sanctioned. Didn’t Forest or Everton lose a case like this?
posted on 1/7/24
I would have thought that keeping hold of Summerville would be much harder than Gray with regards to the willingness of the player.
Summerville is older, more experienced, better at this stage, and comes across as more selfish/arrogant (Also part of why he's so good). He also has no ties to Leeds.
We also have good depth in Summerville's position.
In an ideal world, balancing the books through sales of Gnonto & Meslier on top of Roca, Llorente, Kristensen & possibly Gruev & Kamara would be lovely.
But we don't know the financial situation and it sounds like the 49ers have been lying to us about the PnS situation all season, we also have don't know how genuine the interest is in most of the above.
Get us a CB on loan (Gilchrist at Chelsea or Phillips at Spurs), a rb on loan/free (Sessegnon risk).
Play Ampadu & Gray in the midfield.
Rutter, Aaronson, Summerville, James all attacking mid options.
Piroe, Bamford, Joseph up top.
posted on 1/7/24
comment by Stoopo (U4707)
posted 5 minutes ago
I’m confused now. Reports suggest Spurs are hopeful of reaching an agreement with Leeds and Archie, which suggests the paperwork wasn’t submitted yesterday and no agreement has been reached.
So if we sell him today, it’s in the new accounting period. If the powers that be don’t accept it then we could be selling him and still get sanctioned. Didn’t Forest or Everton lose a case like this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know the rules governing this situation. But would like to think the club do, or at least their lawyers do.
If selling him doesn't save us from punishment then don't do it. End of.
posted on 1/7/24
Totally bemused by all of this. Wish we had some clarity on exactly where we stand re: PSR - Surely if you are the 49ers, determined to get to the EPL pronto, the last thing you want is a points deduction in the EFL? - Remember we as a club have history where upper limits of punishment are concerned.
posted on 1/7/24
comment by The Very Rev Wilko (U21072)
posted 10 minutes ago
Totally bemused by all of this. Wish we had some clarity on exactly where we stand re: PSR - Surely if you are the 49ers, determined to get to the EPL pronto, the last thing you want is a points deduction in the EFL? - Remember we as a club have history where upper limits of punishment are concerned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst we are not safe, we are safe, I cannot see how the EFL can impose a greater penalty on us than on any other team.
posted on 1/7/24
As I see it its our job to be fans its the 49ers job to run the business. After the final whistle blew at wembley it was clear to me we have to go through some pain, and us fans will not like some of the pain......
Having said that all decent business people keep their cards close to their chests, makes absolute sense. Being transparent will only damage their bargaining position.
So far they appear to be doing the majority of things right so I will back them. Much rather have this lot than the social media buffoons previously.
Let them get on with the job and see where we get to, I believe they "get us" as a club.
Fans will never have clarity on the inner workings of the business as that is not our part of the contract.
Frustration is part of being a fan and this time of the year is a nightmare for fans so we just have to live with it..........
posted on 1/7/24
comment by Stoopo (U4707)
posted 42 minutes ago
I’m confused now. Reports suggest Spurs are hopeful of reaching an agreement with Leeds and Archie, which suggests the paperwork wasn’t submitted yesterday and no agreement has been reached.
So if we sell him today, it’s in the new accounting period. If the powers that be don’t accept it then we could be selling him and still get sanctioned. Didn’t Forest or Everton lose a case like this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the transfer is done in the next week or two, there enough evidence to say the transfer was ongoing and could from an accounting view, be placed in June accounts.
Which player did Everton sell in this way.
Forest ?
Johnson was sold 1st of September, hard to put that previous year
posted on 1/7/24
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
Apparently, if the 'intention' paperwork was 'started' yesterday, for PSR purposes it is classed as a 'near miss' meaning it can still be included in the figures for the year ending yesterday. Think we'll get something confirmed along these lines today/tomorrow, sadly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I reading this too simplistically, is the intention sufficient.
We offered Gray up for sale, had one suitor coming forward in time, Brentford, but at the last minute they revealed they would only pay in instalments which doesn't meet the requirements of the PSR regulations and therefore we pulled out because we would sell an asset without still satisfying the regulations. Would that be counted as a "near miss"?
posted on 1/7/24
comment by Dennis - Always Leeds - Always Loyal. (U23086)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
Apparently, if the 'intention' paperwork was 'started' yesterday, for PSR purposes it is classed as a 'near miss' meaning it can still be included in the figures for the year ending yesterday. Think we'll get something confirmed along these lines today/tomorrow, sadly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I reading this too simplistically, is the intention sufficient.
We offered Gray up for sale, had one suitor coming forward in time, Brentford, but at the last minute they revealed they would only pay in instalments which doesn't meet the requirements of the PSR regulations and therefore we pulled out because we would sell an asset without still satisfying the regulations. Would that be counted as a "near miss"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
or to put it more bluntly what is a near miss?
posted on 1/7/24
comment by Outwood White (U9610)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
Its Summerville! LOL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shh don't tell LOW this, it will upset his whole world order.
posted on 1/7/24
comment by Dennis - Always Leeds - Always Loyal. (U23086)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
Apparently, if the 'intention' paperwork was 'started' yesterday, for PSR purposes it is classed as a 'near miss' meaning it can still be included in the figures for the year ending yesterday. Think we'll get something confirmed along these lines today/tomorrow, sadly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I reading this too simplistically, is the intention sufficient.
We offered Gray up for sale, had one suitor coming forward in time, Brentford, but at the last minute they revealed they would only pay in instalments which doesn't meet the requirements of the PSR regulations and therefore we pulled out because we would sell an asset without still satisfying the regulations. Would that be counted as a "near miss"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paying in installments would make no difference to PSR.
So if that really was the reason for rejecting then that would suggest a cash flow problem with the 49ers. Which would be very worrying.
posted on 1/7/24
Rodon is coming the other way it looks like
posted on 1/7/24
Read that medical been passed
posted on 1/7/24
Just read that Kieran Maguire is confident that Leeds are ok with regards to PSR and that it is more likely that this sale is to fund the installments owed towards previous transfer fees.
There is nothing stopping the 49ers loaning the clubs the funds to cover these fees and therefore if this is the case and the 49ers aren't going to fund the club as much as possible then this is far more worrying.
posted on 1/7/24
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 2 minutes ago
Just read that Kieran Maguire is confident that Leeds are ok with regards to PSR and that it is more likely that this sale is to fund the installments owed towards previous transfer fees.
There is nothing stopping the 49ers loaning the clubs the funds to cover these fees and therefore if this is the case and the 49ers aren't going to fund the club as much as possible then this is far more worrying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is next year's PSR that is the bigger worry
posted on 1/7/24
comment by EnfieldLeeds88 (U10248)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 2 minutes ago
Just read that Kieran Maguire is confident that Leeds are ok with regards to PSR and that it is more likely that this sale is to fund the installments owed towards previous transfer fees.
There is nothing stopping the 49ers loaning the clubs the funds to cover these fees and therefore if this is the case and the 49ers aren't going to fund the club as much as possible then this is far more worrying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is next year's PSR that is the bigger worry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then there would be no urgency with the sale.
posted on 1/7/24
"Dennis - Always Leeds - Always Loyal. (U23086)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
Apparently, if the 'intention' paperwork was 'started' yesterday, for PSR purposes it is classed as a 'near miss' meaning it can still be included in the figures for the year ending yesterday. Think we'll get something confirmed along these lines today/tomorrow, sadly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I reading this too simplistically, is the intention sufficient.
We offered Gray up for sale, had one suitor coming forward in time, Brentford, but at the last minute they revealed they would only pay in instalments which doesn't meet the requirements of the PSR regulations and therefore we pulled out because we would sell an asset without still satisfying the regulations. Would that be counted as a "near miss"?"
Did we put him up for sale or did Brentford make an inquiry?..
And Spurs were also there in time!..
But the 49ers holding out, it might be a case of them not worrying about what might be coming, I'm sure they've more of an idea than anyone around here, so trust they're not like the people that helped get us in this mess and are after the best price they can get!..
Page 1 of 3