[Albion] Georginio Rutter - singed 19/8/24

[Sarisbury Seagull]

I’ve just seen him in my local park arguing with a tree.
Oh - hang on - that was a nutter

Wrong striker, that was Andone.

 

[BBassic]

Spotted hanging around in the dairy aisle at Waitrose earlier.

Oh - hang on - that was Butter.

I can't believe it's not Rutter

 

[Shaktarman]

That sounds wrong. Sell on clauses are always a percentage of profit. So if Leeds paid £35m and sold for £40m then there’s £5m profit and the clause will be for a percentage of that.

Not always. If we have one on the likes of Caicedo or White I’d imagine it’s not. It can be anything.

 

[The Optimist]

Not always. If we have one on the likes of Caicedo or White I’d imagine it’s not. It can be anything.

While technically you can agree what you like in a contract I really can’t see a buying club agreeing to a sell on clause that isn’t just on profit.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I’ve just seen him in my local park arguing with a tree.
Oh - hang on - that was a nutter

I saw him blocking out light from a window.

Nope, sorry, that was a shutter.

 

[AZ Gull]

Not always. If we have one on the likes of Caicedo or White I’d imagine it’s not. It can be anything.

We DO have sell-on clauses on White and Caicedo.

No idea why you would imagine they are NOT related to the profit (we seem to have this same conversation on NSC periodically - one time @Bozza even got a comment from Paul Barber confirming almost all sell-ons were profit-related).

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Right, I confess I was a tad underwhelmed when the Rutter link first appeared a month or so ago, largely because I had it in my head that he was a failed striker and not one of The RB Leeds' best players.

But I've watched a lot of videos today and there's an awful lot to like about him if you think of him as an attacking midfielder. He's incredibly tricksy, quick, strong, has a great eye for a pass, and occasionally finishes well despite missing a few chances. He seems extremely popular with The RB Leeds fans and from what I've seen, he appears to be exactly the sort of lively personality you need around the dressing room. There can be no doubt the Albion have run the numbers on him and concluded that he's a really good fit for our game, rather than just looking at his goal output as some clubs would, so I'm converted. He's only 22: our job is to get the best out of him and make him a full France international.

The fact that his imminent departure has left so many The RB Leeds fans wailing and will also inevitably result in their only remaining star player, Willy Gnonto, demanding to leave like he did last summer is just a bonus.

What happened to Ms Crabapple?

Save Edna !

 

[Bodian]

That sounds wrong. Sell on clauses are always a percentage of profit. So if Leeds paid £35m and sold for £40m then there’s £5m profit and the clause will be for a percentage of that.

Looks as though Leeds never actually paid the full £35m though - as not all the add-ons were met.

How much Leeds will have to pay Hoffenheim after agreeing to sell Georginio Rutter to Brighton for £40m

A lump sum is due to the German side.

www.leedsunited.news

 

[Lady Whistledown]

What happened to Ms Crabapple?

Save Edna !

Never heard of her

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Looks as though Leeds never actually paid the full £35m though - as not all the add-ons were met.

How much Leeds will have to pay Hoffenheim after agreeing to sell Georginio Rutter to Brighton for £40m

A lump sum is due to the German side.

www.leedsunited.news

Perhaps the add-ons included "£2 million if The RB Leeds win the Premier League title, and another £20 million to be paid when they win the Champions League".

 

[Shaktarman]

We DO have sell-on clauses on White and Caicedo.

No idea why you would imagine they are NOT related to the profit (we seem to have this same conversation on NSC periodically - one time @Bozza even got a comment from Paul Barber confirming almost all sell-ons were profit-related).

None of what you said contradicts what I said? ‘Almost all’ = ‘not always’

I’d imagine they aren’t related to profit in these cases (and nobody knows for sure on here if they actually exist either factually) as the fees if they moved on are unlikely to be higher, and that would nul and void the sell on clause - wouldn’t be smart business from the Albion.

 

[AZ Gull]

None of what you said contradicts what I said? ‘Almost all’ = ‘not always’

I’d imagine they aren’t related to profit in these cases (and nobody knows for sure on here if they actually exist either factually) ...

They have been reported by multiple reputable news organisations, which is the nearest thing we'll get to seeing the contracts ourselves.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Looking back at the OP and the original tweet, it's weird how many of the Leeds fans make comments about Brighton always wanting their players. And one said we want to be them. I don't recall us buying any of their players in near to distant history. And so many comments stating Leeds shouldn't deal with us because ''they f@cked us about with the Ben White saga'. What? Leeds offered a small amount for our player who went on to be sold for almost double their offer, completely justifying our position. They rightfully have a reputation for delusion, it's great to see them live up to it.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

Never heard of her

R.I.P, Edna . . . gone but never forgotten.

 

[Han Solo]

That sounds wrong. Sell on clauses are always a percentage of profit. So if Leeds paid £35m and sold for £40m then there’s £5m profit and the clause will be for a percentage of that.

Not always. If we have one on the likes of Caicedo or White I’d imagine it’s not. It can be anything.

We DO have sell-on clauses on White and Caicedo.

No idea why you would imagine they are NOT related to the profit (we seem to have this same conversation on NSC periodically - one time @Bozza even got a comment from Paul Barber confirming almost all sell-ons were profit-related).

It is certainly true that almost all sell-ons are profit-related but we're talking Leeds and Chelsea here... if you would choose the two English non-Everton clubs most likely to make financially horrible transfers, they'd both be very good candidates.

 

[Han Solo]

Regarding this potential signing, people seem to think it is done but I'm not taking it for granted. Leeds are likely going to sweet talk him as much as they can, and there's a chance he want assurances that the plan is for him to be starting... which we may or may not be able to give him.

 

[Kojakker]

Isn’t obliterating our record for an incoming transfer enough reassurance that he’ll start?

 

[Hometownglory]

Regarding this potential signing, people seem to think it is done but I'm not taking it for granted. Leeds are likely going to sweet talk him as much as they can, and there's a chance he want assurances that the plan is for him to be starting... which we may or may not be able to give him.

Why would you want to stay at Leeds? I think he'd feel pretty secure of game time knowing he is our record transfer.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Regarding this potential signing, people seem to think it is done but I'm not taking it for granted. Leeds are likely going to sweet talk him as much as they can, and there's a chance he want assurances that the plan is for him to be starting... which we may or may not be able to give him.

And if it's true he's done the first part of the medical, then it's most likely a done deal.

 

[Justice]

And if it's true he's done the first part of the medical, then it's most likely a done deal.

He’s also said his goodbyes source the Leeds manager. It’s a done deal.