Jean-Kévin Augustin - Leipzig To Take Legal Action Against Leeds

[Michael]

21 minutes ago, 6666 said:

Leeds shouldn't have messed around and tried to be sneaky. Now they have to pay a lot for a player that never played for them after his loan ended.

I don't think they should be made to pay for the full amount though. RB Leipzig shouldn't have been allowed to move him on before this was resolved in my opinion. Letting him go on a free was their choice.

Leeds must pay RB Leipzig £18m after Cas rejects appeal over Jean-Kevin Augustin transfer - BBC Sport

Yes, it's official, RB Leipzig have won this case. Leeds are saying that they will appeal again, but it's looking extremely likely that this decision will stand. Leeds will have to pay a lot of money to RB Leipzig now. Augustin, who was once a very highly rated prospect, has struggled with injuries in recent years. He only made 3 appearances when he was at Leeds and went on to flop when he joined French club Nantes. 

RB Leipzig moved him on, because they didn't consider Augustin to be their player anymore. They considered him a free agent, as he should have joined Leeds and no longer been a Leipzig player.

RB Leipzig will be pleased that they will be pocketing a lot of money for a player whose transfer value is probably not even worth 5% of the 21 million euros that they will receive. Leeds on the other hand, have a huge financial amount of money to cough up, for a player who is not even playing with them anymore. Leeds have a history of bad management I am afraid and this trend seems to be continuing.

[6666]

1 minute ago, Michael said:

RB Leipzig moved him on, because they didn't consider Augustin to be their player anymore. They considered him a free agent, as he should have joined Leeds and no longer been a Leipzig player.

This part is the most important for me. I understand their position but what club let's go of an asset before the money is guaranteed and still in dispute? It seems like they did that because they wanted to force the situation. "We had an transfer agreement and we don't even have the player anymore".

Same could be said for Leeds as well though as they seemingly were okay with him moving to a different club because they wanted to say "He's not ours, he's moved on, how can you say we have to pay if RB Leipzig let him go to someone else?".

In the end, RB Leipzig's plan worked and they were in the right to begin with as well but both clubs being okay with him moving on a free to someone else, while this was still an issue, should count against both clubs. Leeds should be forced to pay but maybe half. That'd be my judgement which unfortunately for Leeds counts for nothing. I also wonder if they used this argument or just stuck with their "the date for the end of the season changed so it no longer counts" argument which isn't a great argument.

Having an £18m obligation to buy if promoted was a pretty ridiculous deal to begin with for a Championship club as well. Leeds look stupid in a few ways because of this whole thing.

[Michael]

1 hour ago, 6666 said:

This part is the most important for me. I understand their position but what club let's go of an asset before the money is guaranteed and still in dispute? It seems like they did that because they wanted to force the situation. "We had an transfer agreement and we don't even have the player anymore".

Same could be said for Leeds as well though as they seemingly were okay with him moving to a different club because they wanted to say "He's not ours, he's moved on, how can you say we have to pay if RB Leipzig let him go to someone else?".

In the end, RB Leipzig's plan worked and they were in the right to begin with as well but both clubs being okay with him moving on a free to someone else, while this was still an issue, should count against both clubs. Leeds should be forced to pay but maybe half. That'd be my judgement which unfortunately for Leeds counts for nothing. I also wonder if they used this argument or just stuck with their "the date for the end of the season changed so it no longer counts" argument which isn't a great argument.

Having an £18m obligation to buy if promoted was a pretty ridiculous deal to begin with for a Championship club as well. Leeds look stupid in a few ways because of this whole thing.

Yes, a lot of what you've said is very true. But the thing is, I think RB Leipzig were very confident of winning the case from the outset. They got advice from their lawyers early on, so yeah, they were probably advised to let him go on a free transfer. Remember, he was very injury prone at that stage and wouldn't have been of much use to them as a player in their team. If they'd kept him beyond the agreed date(month) of his departure, it might have looked like they were going against the initial agreement themselves. In any case, Leeds have a lot of money to fork out now. They don't even get Augustin back to play for them, not that they would really want him. I bet most fans of other Bundesliga clubs were hoping that Leeds would win this case. 

[Dave]

3 hours ago, 6666 said:

This part is the most important for me. I understand their position but what club let's go of an asset before the money is guaranteed and still in dispute?

If they had kept him I dont think from a legal perspective they would have had a leg to stand on as they would have been treating him as an employee.

[6666]

18 hours ago, The Palace Fan said:

If they had kept him I dont think from a legal perspective they would have had a leg to stand on as they would have been treating him as an employee.

I guess in the end, the argument of RB Leipzig giving Augustin away to someone else is negated by the fact Leeds' obligation to buy him meant he was their player so him moving on was down to them.

Leeds bought a player for £18m, instantly let him go on a free, then spent extra time and money to get out of it but still have to pay the £18m. Incredible business.