Is paying £18 million not to have Jean-Kevin Augustin around a good deal?

08 Jun 2021 09:16 pm, by YorkshireSquare


News broke on Tuesday that Leeds United could be forced to fork out £18 million to RB Leipzig for Jean-Kevin Augustin. The strikers loan deal had a clause inserted which meant his transfer would be made permanent should Leeds achieve promotion to the Premier League. Leipzig assert that this clause was activated whenever Leeds United achieved promotion. Leeds however dispute this, claiming the paperwork stated a cut-off date of 30th June 2020. The season was of course curtailed due to the Coronavirus pandemic and Leeds eventually achieved promotion after the 30th June. For this reason Leeds believe they are not liable for the transfer fee but a statement from Leipzig yesterday claimed that FIFA had ruled in the German clubs favour…

In the proceedings against Leeds United FC regarding the transfer of Jean-Kévin Augustin, RB Leipzig received a positive decision from FIFA in the first instance. However, the judgment is not yet final.

The verdict is of course still open to be taken to the Court of Arbitration for Sport it could be a while before Leeds have to reach for their wallet for a player they no longer have.

Both Leeds and Leipzig relinquished any claim to Augustin last summer, allowing him to sign for FC Nantes where it seems his career has followed a similar pattern to his short spell at Leeds. Augustin made just three substitute appearances for Nantes last season, totalling 34 minutes. But he has not appeared since November and was banished to Nantes reserve team until the end of the season by manager Antoine Kombouaré. The Frenchman has struggled to regain fitness following a hamstring injury picked up whilst at Leeds. This has been compounded following a Covid-19 diagnosis last year and suffering the ongoing effects of ‘Long Covid’.





Augustin was once a promising prospect, a French youth international capped at every level from Under-16s to Under-21s who was top scorer at the U19 Euros in 2016 ahead of team mate Kylian Mbappé. But following 20 goals in 67 appearances in the Bundesliga his career has stalled. Unsuccessful spells at Monoco, Leeds and now Nantes with fitness issues and rumours of attitude problems raised questions over the future of his career. With Bielsa’s standards and demands on players so high is it best that Jean-Kevin Augustin is not at the club, even if we have to pay £18 million?

Bielsa not only demands unbelievable levels of fitness and conditioning but also desires players who are team players and are a positive influence around the club. Pontus Jansson was moved on for his signs of dissent in the Aston Villa game and demands to return later to training following international duty despite being one of our better players in Bielsa’s first season. Gaetano Berardi was kept at the club and within the first team squad group whilst recovering from injury largely because of his positive influence, particularly on the younger players at the club.

So are we better without Augustin, even if we have to fork out the £18 million to Leipzig, after all if we had made his deal permanent last summer we would have had to pay out a similar amount in wages given his £90,000 a week wages and a 4 year contract. For the sake of the group it’s probably best we don’t have another Ouasim Bouy on our hands, one on ten times the salary for that matter! If we had signed Augustin permanently last summer, we might not have Raphinha in our lives either. Which I’m sure we can all agree would be a very, very bad thing!

View all Showing latest five comments of ten...

Norm wrote on 16 Jun 2021 05:36 am

Welcome back bobcat. :-D :tup:

bobcat wrote on 10 Jun 2021 01:01 pm

It will be appealed and we'll pay something less in arbitration. It was an interesting case to push through legal channels to see how it was handled in a court settings for all parties involved, as well as future contract writing.

SG90 wrote on 09 Jun 2021 11:34 am

weasel wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:03 am Morally we were in the wrong, legally though we were not and it will be interesting to see how it ends up - don't forget the huge amount of players that refused to play for their clubs after 30th June when their contratcs were up - at no point did FIFA rule that those contracts had to be 'morally' honoured and that the players had to play until the actual end of the season. Berardi one of very few players to play on without a contract and but for the club acting morally Berardi could have found himself not only without a wage for this season but having to pay for his own medical care - that could have meant him not getting the best care and having to end his career.

So forget the supposed moral argument it is b*llshit. FIFA have proved it had no merit by allowing all the players to down tools after 30th June. Clubs got relegated because star players refused to play.

The case itself is also interesting because I doubt you also have to factor in whether the deal was agreed with JKA too - could JKA have decided not to sign even if things had gone great? If that is the case then it is not a 'done deal' as such in terms of us signing him. Despite the fee being agreed JKA might have been able to scupper any deal.

So for me the legal position would appear to be very much in Leeds's favour. If we do end up paying the transfer fee but then not be obligated to pay JKA's wages then it would suggest JKA had the option to sign or not sign which would then surely invalidate the transfer anyway.
Completely agree. If Red Bull win, then FIFA have completely contradicted themselves. I can see the likes of Bournemouth and Charlton wanting compensation for relegation.

weasel wrote on 09 Jun 2021 11:03 am

Morally we were in the wrong, legally though we were not and it will be interesting to see how it ends up - don't forget the huge amount of players that refused to play for their clubs after 30th June when their contratcs were up - at no point did FIFA rule that those contracts had to be 'morally' honoured and that the players had to play until the actual end of the season. Berardi one of very few players to play on without a contract and but for the club acting morally Berardi could have found himself not only without a wage for this season but having to pay for his own medical care - that could have meant him not getting the best care and having to end his career.

So forget the supposed moral argument it is b*llshit. FIFA have proved it had no merit by allowing all the players to down tools after 30th June. Clubs got relegated because star players refused to play.

The case itself is also interesting because I doubt you also have to factor in whether the deal was agreed with JKA too - could JKA have decided not to sign even if things had gone great? If that is the case then it is not a 'done deal' as such in terms of us signing him. Despite the fee being agreed JKA might have been able to scupper any deal.

So for me the legal position would appear to be very much in Leeds's favour. If we do end up paying the transfer fee but then not be obligated to pay JKA's wages then it would suggest JKA had the option to sign or not sign which would then surely invalidate the transfer anyway.

JohnnyNoBrain wrote on 09 Jun 2021 08:05 am

We are in the wrong, if it had been the other way round you'd have been wetting your bed slagging of RBL for not paying

Grow up