Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
If he is going to be sold in the summer we are best off recalling him in January, giving him PL experience, and adding to his value.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Ben White Signs new deal
- Thread starter spence
- Start date
albionfan37
Well-known member
We can’t recall him as he’s played to many games now for leeds
He’s developing into precisely the kind of player Potter would want at the back. He’s been sent out for a season to get experience, it’s going fantastically well by all accounts. Really can’t see us selling him, but can see him being a first team starter at the beginning of next season, along with Dunk and Webster. No need for us to sell, so only a truly ridiculous offer would get any attention from TB.
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
Surely we haven't agreed to that sort of deal. What if another 2 of our centre backs get injured before New Year ?
Someone has messed up badly if that is the case.
saafend_seagull
Well-known member
30m basically. Pays for the leakage on ali j, izquierdo.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Caveman
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2003
- 9,926
Then players such as Balogun will get there chance, when White went out on loan the idea was to get game time, if he has gone better than expected that’s a bonus.
Also the step up from championship to Prem is a big one, although it seems he could well take that step.
It’s good news for the club, I don’t see any negative, we have a squad and they deserve their chances to play, you could argue never sending players out on loan if you feel your squad isn’t good or strong enough.
Not 100% clear whether that’s contractual, or just that we’ll be happy to leave him the because he’s getting sufficient game time..........this implies we can recall
https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/leeds-united/leeds-united-nketiah-recall-clause-16941347
blue-shifted
Banned
Yes. If this is confirmed, we've messed up. There is no need at all to hold ourselves hostage to fortune by not giving ourselves the option of a recall. I'm not convinced this is the case though
blue-shifted
Banned
It would make more sense for us to give us the discretion to recall whatever the circumstances. Our job is to look after the interests of BHA not Leeds or anyone else.
I suppose as long as we avoid other injuries it will be ok. It's unlikely Webster and Bernardo will still be injured in January
From the link above - "fairly confident that they recall wouldn't be activated by the parent club." Not 'can't', but probably won't then.
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,399
I’ve never heard of anything being written into a loan contract that says you can’t recall a player when they play X amount of minutes, that seems like a stupid clause to put in a contract when in fact you are probably more likely to recall a player the more minutes they play? Pretty sure it just means we are less likely to recall him because he’s developing well and a guaranteed starter at Leeds.
Marshy
Well-known member
If a top 4 side comes in with 35 million I think its possible he could be sold.
But I just don't see it, he is a Potter player all over.
And in all honesty you have to think Balogun and possibly Duffy will be off in the summer.
But I just don't see it, he is a Potter player all over.
And in all honesty you have to think Balogun and possibly Duffy will be off in the summer.
nwgull
Well-known member
Leeds fans know that their promotion campaign will be jeopordised without White. Can someone with an ounce of credibility or large following start a Twitter rumour that he's being recalled in Jan just for the LOLs?
Iggle Piggle
Well-known member
- Sep 3, 2010
- 5,952
It would make sense that we could recall if White didn't play x number of minutes.
If Leeds were not playing White, we would have the option to recall him and send him somewhere else that would In Jan (think we did similar with Maguire-drew). There is little point sending someone out on loan to gain experience if that doesn't happen. On the flip side, Leeds would not want the risk of him being recalled if they didn't play him but could also be recalled if he was a world beater. I think it has already been reported that we wouldn't agree on the option to buy clause to Leeds so this was probably the middle ground.
I guess the negotiation can only protect against one or the other eventuality.
Why would the club sell?
What possible reason do they have (beyond relegation this season) to sell BW any time soon?
There's nowt as queer as folk.
What possible reason do they have (beyond relegation this season) to sell BW any time soon?
There's nowt as queer as folk.
Why would the club sell?
What possible reason do they have (beyond relegation this season) to sell BW any time soon?
There's nowt as queer as folk.
Indeed. I think Paul Barber FFP / Revenue chats has rubbed off on folk now. So we're selling Duffy, White in January, Dunk in the summer. £100M in the bank, at least our balance sheet will look good
That’s my take on it. We ‘could’ recall him, but as he’s getting on well and getting plenty of game time it’s ’unlikely’ we would activate the recall clause because it’s currently in his and our interests to continue the loan.
If he was constantly on the bench or not performing then we’d think differently.
What we would do in the event of another serious injury to a CB, or a longer than expected absence for Webster at this stage of the season could change things though I guess.
Still think he’ll come back at the end of the season
Nah I always put it down to ingrained 'small club thinking'.Indeed. I think Paul Barber FFP / Revenue chats has rubbed off on folk now. So we're selling Duffy, White in January, Dunk in the summer. £100M in the bank, at least our balance sheet will look good
We've spent 100+ years dropping our draws at even a hint of Man Utd interest, some fans still can't laugh in their faces.
Papa Lazarou
Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
Everyone seems very impressed with Leeds United's Ben White