12 May 2013 15:09:28
Peltier or byram to go because if we are looking a t the likes of ward and mills 2 good centre backs that means byram is off peltier right back and then either them and lees in defence or peltier gone because he is not needed what do you think?
Believable5
Unbelievable73
12 May 2013 16:23:21
It would be better if peltier went to RB his more natural position or should give him confidence as well. This will allow Byram to move to RM a more attacking position one which will suite him better, just my opinion MOT
Agree1
Disagree0
Most teams need 2 right backs. and Sam can also play Midfield. so. no.
Agree1
Disagree0
I would like to think it's Peltier to go because personally I don't think he's good enough, although if the money is top dollar for Byram then the board would find it very hard to turn down.
Agree0
Disagree0
I think your logic is non existent. if we're looking at CBs it's because we only have two and need either back up, competition or a new regular. Pelts will do as back up rb and remember byram can play at rm aswell
Agree0
Disagree0
If that was the case my friend why not just push byram up onto the wing! The end!
Agree0
Disagree0
After a season bedding him in at right back, I think it is time for us to make fuller use of Byram's talents. He is far too good to stay at right back. Moving him up to right side of midfield would massively strengthen the weakest area of our team -the middle of the park. Then we would just need one other wide man -on the left. Don't forget Bale and Kewell both started inn the first team at full back. Chapel A
Agree0
Disagree0
Lol kewell was never a full back. peltier was very bad to start with but actually he's been one of our best as cb so just buy a rb and put byram rm
Agree1
Disagree0
Check it out, if you don't remember, Kewell first appeared in the first team at full-back (1996). Peltier probably good enough at right back (but definitely not left back, and probably not at centre back, except in an emergency). Chapel A
Agree0
Disagree0
12 May 2013 14:57:09
Looks like there will not be a big war chest to buy players.
Leeds will use £3.3m from season ticket sales for next season to repay the remainder of the £5m loan provided by Ticketus for the rebuilding of Elland Road's East Stand in 2011, and falling league attendances have affected the club's revenue, though their income for the 2012-13 term was aided by multiple cup fixtures at Elland Road
Discussing Gulf Finance House's figures for the first three months of 2013, Alrayes said that the firm was "focused on maximising the potential of our current portfolio and working on early exits from our projects. "
Believable27
Unbelievable12
12 May 2013 16:50:37
Has anyone mentioned a big war chest? I think the 3 to 5m we got for selling 10% to IIB will fund a couple of quality players. The rest will be free and our youth getting promoted to 1st team. JT-lufc
Agree0
Disagree0
I totally agree all these clowns off Leeds fans make me mad naming players we have no chance off signing why build your hopes up to be let down? They go about negativity but being realistic I can only see one way off Leeds having money to spend and that's if we sell byram which I think is the plan because u have Eddie gray sayin he will be great for spurs
Agree0
Disagree0
12 May 2013 17:43:51
Brian md has already stated that he is bringing in 7 players and the east stand has already been paid off ken bates has said that and gfh said apon gaining ownship said there is no debt on the club so the club owes no money so gfh have invested 10m already plus 7 more players coming in so I think we do I have a warchest
Agree0
Disagree1
12 May 2013 18:27:59
on the flip side - if they exit, then we will have new owners who might invest? So the reality is we don't know. we may have GFH and debts being cleared, or new owners looking to buy players.
Either way its better than Bates regime and investing in needless stadium improvements on a ground the club don't own.
Agree0
Disagree0
Im confident GFH will either get investment or sell the majority of LUFC before the start of next season so there should be some money to spend. just not the extravagant millions leeds fans hope for
Agree0
Disagree0
East stand only be paid with the next 2 seasons ticket money so don't be tryin to say they paid out own pocket the price if a season ticket is scandalous for the rubbish we have to put up with, it's really bad when u see that the 4 teams in champs lge semi finals season tickets are cheaper than ours I'd say its daylight robbery
Agree0
Disagree0
Well they will not be getting my money if there's no investment and another 10 thousand I would have thought
Agree0
Disagree0
13 May 2013 05:48:25
who said GFH were paying these debts of with their own money> thay have admitted they arent. However if they are clearing them they are making us more attractive to new buyers - a debt free club is an attractive one.
Agree0
Disagree0
JT-lufc How do you know that the money from selling 10% of the club will go into buying players and just not back to the owner?
Agree0
Disagree0
14 May 2013 07:03:55
I don't know obviously, that is just my guess. The money will come from selling shares or selling byram I just hope its not the latter. JT-lufc
Agree0
Disagree0
The money from selling 10% of the club would have definitely gone back to the club. Hence the increase in the club's valuation.
Not the whole amount, of course. A percentage will have gone to the deal's brokers, personally.
Will it be used to fund player transfers?
Unlikely. This club needed cash injections from GFH last season just to operate.
Unless we sell more tickets (or more of the club) we aren't going to have a huge amount to spend on players.
Signing on fees for free transfers are still pretty costly (and if your manager has an understanding with a common agent, very lucrative, personally. Colin, I hope something nasty happens to you). happily, there are a number of good players that we can get in at fairly reasonable prices this summer.
Some of the deadwood is gone (not enough but its a start). Future looks. ok. Not good but. ok.
Agree0
Disagree0