The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

For everything Leeds United related and everything not - Have your say... the Marching on Together way!
Forum rules
Please be sure you are acquainted with the forum rules outlined within our FAQs.

Help support the site by using our Amazon Affiliate link when making any purchases from Amazon.
User avatar
Ellandback1
Superstar
Superstar
Posts: 11930
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:01 pm
Twitter: @EllandBack1
Location: The truth is out there

Breakfast Debate The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by Ellandback1 »



Good Morning. It's Thursday 10th July, and here are the latest headlines from Elland Road...


Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Leeds pursuit of Newcastle United's versatile midfielder Sean Longstaff has hit the rocks, with the Tyneside outfit firmly rejecting the Whites' latest offer. Despite Leeds tabling a package worth £10 million, bolstered by a further £2 million in add-ons, Newcastle have dug in their heels, now demanding a £15 million for the 27-year-old.

Crucially, sources indicate that Leeds had already successfully agreed personal terms with Longstaff, suggesting the player himself is keen on a move to Elland Road. This makes Newcastle's resolute stance particularly frustrating for the West Yorkshire outfit. Longstaff, who is in the final year of his contract, saw limited game time for the Magpies last season, often finding himself on the fringes of Eddie Howe's plans. However, Newcastle had the foresight to activate an additional 12-month extension on his deal, protecting their asset and strengthening their negotiating position.

Leeds United's strategy this summer has been clear: to add vital experience and much-needed depth to their squad without overspending. Longstaff, with his Premier League pedigree and ability to cover multiple midfield roles, perfectly fits this mould. However, the disparity between Leeds' valuation and Newcastle's now seemingly firm £15 million demand presents a significant hurdle.

This latest rejection leaves Leeds at a crossroads. The Elland Road hierarchy must now decide whether to table a fourth, improved bid, potentially pushing closer to Newcastle's revised valuation, or to pivot their attention elsewhere in the market. The clock is ticking, and the need for reinforcements is pressing.

Interestingly, whispers from the North East suggest that any funds generated from Longstaff's sale could be earmarked by Eddie Howe for Coventry City's rising star, Jack Rudoni. Dubbed one of the finest talents outside of the top flight, Rudoni has attracted considerable attention. This development might offer Leeds an alternative target, as they "could do a lot worse than go after Rudoni themselves" should the Longstaff deal ultimately collapse.





Are Leeds behind schedule in summer recruitment drive

This is not the first time this season that Leeds have faced transfer frustrations this summer. Previous pursuits of promising young talents like Habib Diarra and Noah Sadiki ended in disappointment, with both players opting to join newly promoted Sunderland.

Whether this string of near-misses is indicative of Leeds dithering, or merely taking a more cautious approach to stay the right side of PSR, is up for debate. The capture of Chemsdine Talbi (£20m from Brugge) and imminent arrival of Simon Adingra from Brighton has taken Sunderland's spending this window to £117.5m.

In contrast, Leeds have parted with just £30m. We can expect the 49ers to spend big on a keeper and goal scorer this summer, with Rodrigo Muniz still top of Daniel Farke's wish list. With only four new faces through the door so far this transfer window, Leeds appear noticeably behind schedule in their summer recruitment drive. This will soon be forgotten if they can bring in a couple of marquee signings.





Milinkovic-Savic move unlikely

Leeds search for a new goalkeeper continues, though sources at Elland Road are now downplaying one high-profile target. Despite recent discussions taking place between Leeds and Torino, the acquisition of the towering 6ft 8in Vanja Milinkovic-Savic is now considered the most unlikely option,

Meanwhile, Olympique Lyon's summer transfer strategy could be significantly altered after winning their crucial appeal against relegation. A key player on Leeds radar is Lucas Perri, widely regarded as one of Europe's top shot-stoppers.

However, Perri comes with a significant caveat: a 50% sell-on fee owed to his former club, Botafogo. With Lyon still navigating financial difficulties, the question arises whether parting with a player of Perri's calibre, only to lose half the transfer revenue, is a viable or desirable move. This dilemma could heavily influence their approach to the market and their ability to reinvest elsewhere!


User avatar
lufc1304
Superstar
Superstar
Posts: 14848
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:40 pm
Twitter: @DrGonzo2411
Location: Lisburn, N.I

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by lufc1304 »

Re Longstaff, time to move on, we must have other targets.

We seem to be frustrated at every turn regarding targets, if they actually are something more than rumours, meanwhile Sunderland seemingly have no issue bringing in players. Have they more leeway re PSR or whatever it's called these days? My hope is that there is business being done quietly in the background but, as it stands, we are shy a GK, AMF and striker as a minimum. Probably a left winger too, depending on what happens with Harrison and our ongoing (is it?) pursuit of Solomon. Yes, it's still early doors re the transfer window, but at least one marquee signing would settle a lot of nerves, I reckon.
"When the going gets weird, the weird get professional!" Hunter S Thompson
User avatar
The Subhuman
Superstar
Superstar
Posts: 79505
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:03 am
Location: God's own county

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by The Subhuman »

lufc1304 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 8:29 am Re Longstaff, time to move on, we must have other targets.

We seem to be frustrated at every turn regarding targets, if they actually are something more than rumours, meanwhile Sunderland seemingly have no issue bringing in players. Have they more leeway re PSR or whatever it's called these days? My hope is that there is business being done quietly in the background but, as it stands, we are shy a GK, AMF and striker as a minimum. Probably a left winger too, depending on what happens with Harrison and our ongoing (is it?) pursuit of Solomon. Yes, it's still early doors re the transfer window, but at least one marquee signing would settle a lot of nerves, I reckon.
Doubtful, we moved a lot of talent last season which won't have been on the books till now. I think we're fine upto around 100-120M... Sunderland might be risking a two point deduction if they stay up or worse if they go back down (EFL are a bit draconian) but sometimes you have to colour outside the lines.

I can guess at reasons why we might be struggling but they're just guesses.

I do think the niners are massively over rated here as a board..
"A mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work if it's not open"
User avatar
Clitheroe White
First Team
First Team
Posts: 1690
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:38 am

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by Clitheroe White »

The Subhuman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 8:49 am .

I do think the niners are massively over rated here as a board..
Why do you think that?
User avatar
Clitheroe White
First Team
First Team
Posts: 1690
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:38 am

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by Clitheroe White »

lufc1304 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 8:29 am Re Longstaff, time to move on, we must have other targets.

.
Kind of agree...feels like Newcastle trying their arm. Longstaff doesn't set the world alight, but would be a good addition. £15m and we're approaching the next level of targets. They may land somewhere nearer 12 and all agree.
User avatar
billysboots
Site Contributor
Site Contributor
Posts: 1503
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 7:29 am
Location: N.Ireland

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by billysboots »

Is there anyone else in for Longstaff?
If not can we play hardball with the toon?
There Is Only One United.
User avatar
The Subhuman
Superstar
Superstar
Posts: 79505
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:03 am
Location: God's own county

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by The Subhuman »

billysboots wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 9:16 am Is there anyone else in for Longstaff?
If not can we play hardball with the toon?
Is it worth it for a back up centre mid?

lets focus on Stach, he would be a good signing
"A mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work if it's not open"
Jammy 07
Manager
Manager
Posts: 3877
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2020 10:09 am

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by Jammy 07 »

The Subhuman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 9:18 am Is it worth it for a back up centre mid?

lets focus on Stach, he would be a good signing
Don't think Longstaff would see himself as back up to be honest.
User avatar
Barlow Boy
Site Contributor
Site Contributor
Posts: 11834
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2023 9:32 pm

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by Barlow Boy »

Can’t say I’m particularly concerned with the steady Eddie approach.

I’d rather take our time and get it right, than rushing and getting it wrong.
Don’t cry because you said goodbye to your pet, smile because you said hello
User avatar
The Subhuman
Superstar
Superstar
Posts: 79505
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:03 am
Location: God's own county

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by The Subhuman »

Jammy 07 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 9:45 am Don't think Longstaff would see himself as back up to be honest.
And probably a good reason to end our interest, he's no better than what's already here
"A mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work if it's not open"
User avatar
The Subhuman
Superstar
Superstar
Posts: 79505
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:03 am
Location: God's own county

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by The Subhuman »

Barlow Boy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 9:54 am Can’t say I’m particularly concerned with the steady Eddie approach.

I’d rather take our time and get it right, than rushing and getting it wrong.
What about take our time and get it wrong? Slow and steady wins the race is very rarely true
"A mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work if it's not open"
Jammy 07
Manager
Manager
Posts: 3877
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2020 10:09 am

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by Jammy 07 »

Barlow Boy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 9:54 am Can’t say I’m particularly concerned with the steady Eddie approach.

I’d rather take our time and get it right, than rushing and getting it wrong.
Totally agree.

Our best signing last time around (after promotion) didn't happen until the last few days of the window.
WhiteRose
Manager
Manager
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2019 12:24 pm

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by WhiteRose »

The Subhuman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 8:49 am Doubtful, we moved a lot of talent last season which won't have been on the books till now. I think we're fine upto around 100-120M... Sunderland might be risking a two point deduction if they stay up or worse if they go back down (EFL are a bit draconian) but sometimes you have to colour outside the lines.

I can guess at reasons why we might be struggling but they're just guesses.

I do think the niners are massively over rated here as a board..
I’m no finance expert but the consensus amongst Sunderland fans and some sport journos is that they have 200 million to spend - they don’t have a prior prem campaign affecting them and they haven’t spent much for years, they also sold Bellingham.
WhiteRose
Manager
Manager
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2019 12:24 pm

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by WhiteRose »

Dont think anyone wants us to over pay for players , I personally think longstaff is worth 15 million even with just a year left so we should just shake on it.

Whilst we do have a lot of gaps to fill apart from my general impatience I’m not worried yet - it’s probable that we are waiting for teams to make their mind up on players we are interested in like Solomon, I think we end up getting him but spurs have to make some signings first
User avatar
weasel
Superstar
Superstar
Posts: 19793
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 10:28 pm
Location: Firmly on the Danny-Magnet

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by weasel »

Jammy 07 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 10:15 am Totally agree.

Our best signing last time around (after promotion) didn't happen until the last few days of the window.
Yes and thankfully it was because an earlier attempt to buy a player fell through. If it hadn't been for Cuisance failing his medical we would have signed a vastly overpriced midfielder for £20m (think he was sold for £500k recently after being an abject failure) and never have signed Raphinha. Thankfully us having £20m still available to spend meant we were able to react quickly when Raphinha's club indicated a surprising willingness to sell, and for a lower than expected price.
Cjay wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 4:23 pm I've pretended to support a team that's been crap for most of my life as part of a long term plan
Victor_Notts-17 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2026 7:03 pm Did you post them because there's something wrong with your brain
User avatar
weasel
Superstar
Superstar
Posts: 19793
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 10:28 pm
Location: Firmly on the Danny-Magnet

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by weasel »

WhiteRose wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 10:54 am I’m no finance expert but the consensus amongst Sunderland fans and some sport journos is that they have 200 million to spend - they don’t have a prior prem campaign affecting them and they haven’t spent much for years, they also sold Bellingham.
Wouldn't be surprised. They can in theory go about £50m in debt for this year and the last two so if they haven't spent much in the last 2 years (they sold Jack Clarke to Ipswich last summer so that might have wiped out any spending accrued) then they have that to spend. £50m then becomes £200m if all new signings are put on 4 year contracts, or becomes £250 if you put them on 5 year contracts. You then factor in the sales of Bellingham and the lad they sold to Brighton for £10mish.

The problems only arise further down the line because if they say spend £200m this summer on all 4 year contracts then next season they are £50m down before buying a player, the same the following year and also the year after. So if the players they have bought don't shine and they get relegated then they are in big trouble as they have to raise £50 (or £39m as you are allowed around £11m debt as a championship club) just to balance out what you owe. So it can become a fire sale but if your £30m signing has flopped and is worth £10 then selling him actually makes the situation worse (i.e. if you sold him for £10m you then have no asset left so the £22.5m - made up of 3 of the 4 years of his £30m transfer fee - would have to be accounted for immediately and as such selling him for £10 would not net you £10m but in PSR terms make you £12.5m worse off.

It is the ludicrous state of PSR which means selling players makes you worse off (like us with Wober) so you effectively simply wave actual money goodbye (loan them out instead of selling and in some cases keep doing that until their contract ends).
Cjay wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 4:23 pm I've pretended to support a team that's been crap for most of my life as part of a long term plan
Victor_Notts-17 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2026 7:03 pm Did you post them because there's something wrong with your brain
The Fish
Youth Team
Youth Team
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:37 pm

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by The Fish »

Alright lads,

Longstaff would be a great signing, I reckon. Even for £20m-£25m.

spend all of it on him, he's mint.
DDB220
Superstar
Superstar
Posts: 7101
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2020 10:17 am

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by DDB220 »

If Farke really wants Longstaff (which appears to be the case)and Newcastle are keen to sell him, which regardless of recent comments by the club, is the more likely situation. There will be a meet in the middle scenario. Unless another club comes in for him which changes the negotiation dynamics in Newcastles favour.

This is a transfer which is likely to rumble on for a while.
marie67
Subs Bench
Subs Bench
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 12:24 am

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by marie67 »

I think Longstaff for £15 million sounds reasonable.
We should just bite the bullet rather that dither and lose him to someone else.
User avatar
lufc1304
Superstar
Superstar
Posts: 14848
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:40 pm
Twitter: @DrGonzo2411
Location: Lisburn, N.I

Re: The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Thursday 10th July) Newcastle demand £15m for Longstaff

Post by lufc1304 »

The Subhuman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 8:49 am Doubtful, we moved a lot of talent last season which won't have been on the books till now. I think we're fine upto around 100-120M... Sunderland might be risking a two point deduction if they stay up or worse if they go back down (EFL are a bit draconian) but sometimes you have to colour outside the lines.

I can guess at reasons why we might be struggling but they're just guesses.

I do think the niners are massively over rated here as a board..
Risky strategy from Sunderland, if true, perhaps our board are just a bit more risk averse?

My guess is that, as a newly promoted club, we're not that attractive a proposition given the frequency of relegation first season back up. Despite our "big club" tag, which I would dispute.

Don't think they've done too much wrong, tbh, but the end of this window will tell us if letting the previous recruitment team go was a mistake.
"When the going gets weird, the weird get professional!" Hunter S Thompson
Post Reply