Leeds MD Robbie Evans Q&A: Daniel Farke contract, transfer business and SCR situation

Leeds United managing director Robbie Evans spoke to the media, including The Athletic, at the club’s training ground this week.

He addressed an array of topics, from the transfer window to the club’s Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) position, deadline day to those targets who proved elusive, as well as Daniel Farke’s future.

Here is a selection of his best answers from Thursday’s interview.

---

How successful was the transfer window?

Evans: Last year, the phrase was, “We had a good window and a bad deadline.” I would say this summer was a good window and a good deadline.

The key for us is we had a couple of top objectives to accomplish, and those all got done early, in terms of a left-footed centre-back, inverted right-winger and goalkeeper. From there, having signed our top targets in all three of those positions, we were able to pursue roles around the pitch to make us better and stronger.

We’re quite satisfied with the window. I’m a little concerned by how content and optimistic the fans might be because I don’t think last summer, when the window closed, had been as bad as folks thought it was. And this summer, the real proof will be a year from now. We’re quite content. I’m very proud of how the team worked this summer. Adam (Underwood, sporting director) and Daniel worked well every day, did a wonderful job.

You said you fulfilled some of those main targets early on. Did you fulfil the rest of the remit when it came to targets?

We filled all the key roles. There’s always a debate around how much to go into depth. I’m guessing most of the questions out there now are around a fourth full-back or a third striker. That’s where the constant collaboration with Daniel was critical. We filled the roles we felt were right to fill at the right squad fit, character fit, (and) long-term financial commitment.

How close were you to getting a third striker in?

There was no desire at all this summer to find a striker who was going to compete with or take over Dominic (Calvert-Lewin)’s spot. It was not a No 1 striker summer for us. It would have been a supporting role only, and supporting roles are quite hard to fill because you have to have this Venn diagram: overlapping circles of the right character, the right squad fit, the right price, and be content to be a backup.

If someone comes in thinking they’re going to start and they’re not, they’re going to be a problem in the dressing room. The number of players who are good enough to play in the league, willing to fight for their spot or be a backup, and fit our long-term profile financially is a very, very small list.

Even some of the names I’d seen circulating around were players who would not want that role. We’re not going to pursue them to come and be unhappy on day one.

I won’t comment on what other teams have done, but in general, whether it’s the left-back role, the supporting winger role or it’s the striker role, those are always tricky, and so that’s why they held open longer. In the end, we have a pretty good solution with our current squad.

In early June, the general feeling was the bulk of investment might be in attack over defence. Did that strategy pivot into more investment at the back?

The expectation coming out of summer was to be a bit more attack-heavy at that time. There was still some hope Pascal (Struijk) would stay, but he wanted to leave, which is a different topic. We also recognised (that) signing a player like James Trafford would be very, very challenging. If you can get him in, that changes the financial weighting of your summer.

There were a couple of targets at the loose left-wing spot we didn’t get in, Julian Brandt being well publicised. The mix depends on who’s there in the market and who’s a good fit.

By the end of the summer, there was a pretty small list of names who were signed off by both Daniel and the sporting department on the winger roles. We got our top target right winger in, Harry (Wilson), early and then got a really high-upside left winger in (Jean-Matteo) Bahoya. Two wingers were most likely. We knew we could pull a striker in, but it didn’t feel probable to get all three of those in, given the challenges mentioned earlier.

As far as filling squad roles, it ended up similar to how we discussed with Daniel back in May. Part of the challenge for me in these conversations is people look at the fee and debate whether we put more money here or there. “What does a free count as? What does a loan count as?”

Jean-Matteo’s transaction, if completed, is still pretty sizeable, but in the moment, people might count it as a ‘loan only’. My view is, you brought in two players who are each worth eight figures, but they might look like a free and a loan.

We missed out on some other big names; there’s no point in hiding that, but we ended up with two wingers and then replacing Pascal with Tarik (Muharemovic), adding James (Trafford) and then fitting around them some more players.

Last year, you described Calvert-Lewin as a £20million ($27m) investment. How would you describe the outlay on Harry Wilson as a free agent?

I don’t think I’ll get into the exact financial equivalency because that felt like a bridge too far even last year, but I do view him as a player in that same realm of being in the tens of millions, even in his late 20s, as far as the quality of player we are getting.

We finished behind Fulham last season and took their player of the season on a free. It’s hard to imagine that’s a bad idea, especially with our focus on set pieces and needing to fill that right-sided, left-footed role.

It felt surprising you needed to sell Pascal (Struijk) to meet the PSR (profit and sustainability rules) limit…

I was a bit surprised at how confident some people were that we were far clearer (on) PSR last summer because we said back in September we were unequivocally maxed out. You never quite know where you end up on PSR or SCR until the season’s over because your financials are constantly evolving.

I was pretty confident coming into the year we’d have to sell some guys in June. Frankly, it was the cup run, the 14th-place finish, and doing pretty minimal work in January that kept it to being just one player.

Last August, we were prepared for it to be two if it had to be because the goal was to go as hard as you have to go to build the best possible squad to survive. That was a risk we took on last summer.

We knew that was going to be a possible issue in June, depending on the outcome of the season, and so Pascal was the solution for that. Thankfully, it’s just one player, not more than one.

How helpful was it Pascal made his intention clear early, so you were able to go in for Tarik Muharemovic pretty sharply?

We were prepared for that possibility all season, and did tons of work on left centre-back last year. Once we knew he was leaving, we began to work on the replacement. Having that news early was helpful.

What was it the club saw in Tarik?

The phrase you heard last summer was to “raise the floor”, and this summer was to raise the floor and raise the ceiling, and get younger. It was less a focus on players who played loads of minutes in top five leagues and more about players who have both the quality now, but also the quality to go to the next level.

Between Daniel, Alex and Adam, the view on Tarik was simply he has a really high level already, but he has more to give. So he’s worth the investment. We did add experience, but more in the (Nico) Elvedi, (Melvin) Bard, Wilson categories.

This summer, we wanted to get better, but also better for a longer period of time because we also recognise, last summer, when you’re only buying 27-year-olds, it is not a long-term solution. Tarik gives you a significantly longer runway to build the squad and improve over time.

Were you always confident you could land James Trafford?

I have a healthy state of anxiety at all times. You are never fully confident until a player is done. James is an English national player. We believe he is the future No 1. You are always wary of the competition because he’s a world-class player already, and he’s a young player who is getting better still.

That healthy fear of the competition helped us because we were on it the entire time with him, trying to be very deliberate in our approach to his camp and be responsive to their needs and pitch the project as a fit for him, for the family, for his career.

You never fully relax until they’ve signed, and that was the case for him because we know any club in the world has one injury one day, and they might just come calling for him.

How has the perception of the club changed when you have pitched to targets?

The key thing we push on is the project, the backing and the club. Someone like Tarik, being a 23-year-old player from Bosnia, he might not realise Leeds is one of the biggest clubs in the world.

A lot of our pitch is talking about — even in the relegation years, even in the Championship — how we have some incredible figures on just how big this club actually is. You’re not having to sell or spin the project; it’s more like educating, because Leeds genuinely is massive.

It certainly got a bit easier this year. Not all of those guys would have come last summer, even if we know Harry was interested then, but it can only help to have good seasons in the Premier League. Even finishing 14th versus barely avoiding relegation helps too.

There’s a real perception of the club as being stable. The agents see that, the players see that, and so they want to be a part of something that’s going somewhere. They see this as joining an ascending project.

What was the reality of the Shea Charles situation?

We had our overall squad-building goals, we had our financial parameters, and we had a view on where we could fit the player in terms of the sacrifices or compromises elsewhere that have to happen because of him.

At some point, you hit a point where it felt like it’s not the right thing for us to do, and so you walk away from that. Again, that was more of a market opportunity. There weren’t a lot of players in midfield we felt had the right age, profile, and fit to go after.

When we didn’t get that one, it wasn’t an urgent need to go and sign a midfielder because our midfield is quite strong, actually. It was worth looking into, and we did, and then at some point it felt like it was no longer the right value for us, and the best move was to have the discipline to walk away.

What was deadline day like inside the club?

It was a super intense day. I’m not sure it was chaotic, but it was very, very intense. The big hero of that day was probably Hannah Cox, our head of football administration, who, along with Abigail Stenton, assistant club secretary, got functionally five transactions (two loans plus two options and Wilfried Gnonto’s exit) done in one afternoon.

The reason we were able to deliver on that was because we had a plan in place and had done the work already on both Melvin and Jean-Matteo previously, including not just the scouts, but also the coaching staff. When you have layers of preparation, you can react quickly when things change around you, and I was very proud of the team for being able to execute, and for flexibility and capability on deadline day.

At the same time, as you’ve seen from around the league, my biggest gripe with deadline day is not just the kind of circus that surrounds it, but also that things are beyond your control and things can go wrong. You end up relying on whether a player and his agents, or the other club, or various law firms, or even cross-national contract databases, and all these things are happening at once.

The risk on deadline day is you’re not in control of the outcome. For example, at 11pm and later on deadline day, we were coordinating with three different law firms to redline four different documents across multiple countries.

Getting it done was great, and I’m glad it seemed calm, cool, and collected from the outside. But it was a very intense day for us, and I have been kindly asked by Hannah to never do that ever again.

To get two good players on the sort of deals we got them on was a big win for us, but it was never required, because we like to avoid being in a place where the strategy requires a deadline day deal. That was the biggest frustration last summer as well because we had Facundo (Buonanotte) fall through, and we found ourselves needing a deal on deadline day despite hoping to avoid it.

This year, our internal mandate was, ‘Let’s not have the whole team hinging on deadline day’, and frankly, it didn’t, but also the team is stronger because of what we got done that day as well, so it was certainly a net positive.

Where do Leeds stand on SCR now?

So the high-level answer is the same as last summer, which is our goal is to spend all we can under PSR or SCR, and I’m confident we’ve done that. The actual way it works is complicated, so you don’t know exactly how much you’re over or under until the season’s finished, based on placements, cup runs, partnership revenues, game day sales, things like that, but I’m confident we are spending up to the limit.

We won’t know if we’re a little bit over or under for the year until it’s over, but we did not leave any meat on the bone this summer. It’s also worth noting (that) this year SCR is in a phase-in season, so there are no levies this season.

Even if we end up over, there would not be a tax, and we’d certainly be well short of a points deduction. To your broader question on points deductions or other penalties, in general, we would rather run up to the line and, if we get a bit over, take a fine if we have to, than run too far below the line and leave ourselves with a gap in the squad.

Even then, the rules are pretty complicated, but allow for some overage, so if you are aspirational and plan to achieve certain revenue targets and you miss by a bit, it’s not like PSR, where you miss, and it’s instantly a points deduction. It would be a fine only.

The structural goal is to have a soft landing if you’re wrong. All of which is to say is that yes, we are aiming at that 85 per cent, maybe a bit over, maybe a bit under.

Even if we end up over, fans should not panic. It’s not going to be some kind of crisis or points deduction for the club, as it would just be a levy. And this year the levy is being waived because it’s the first year of it.

Is SCR better for Leeds than PSR?

The short answer is yes. SCR is good for Leeds long-term. I know there’s been some curiosity around why we voted against SCR last season.

This year in particular, I would rather have had PSR because we were coming out of a three-year PSR window that included a very tough first year in the Championship. That year was going to roll off our three-year window this year, and that could have given us potentially a lot of freedom this summer.

The move from PSR to SCR robbed us of that opportunity, so I was hoping for more of a phase-in year where you could pick PSR or SCR, or perhaps we delay SCR by a year, that kind of thing. Long-term, SCR is probably better for Leeds because the teams that tend to benefit are teams that have a large fanbase (and) strong commercial revenues.

We’re probably more in that peer group than in the alternative peer group. SCR is good for us long-term, even if I had selfishly hoped the PSR era would have lasted 12 more months.

What clause does Bahoya have to trigger to make his loan permanent? Alternatively, how likely is it (that) he will trigger it?

I’m not going to comment on his trigger, but the key thing for us is we are looking at him as a player who can be a long-term solution in the Premier League. Daniel’s goal is to train him every day like he’s part of the squad for the long-term, give him opportunities, (and) develop the talent.

If things all go right, he’ll be a player you want to have in the building, whether it’s via his obligation being triggered or whether it’s just taking the option.

What are the terms of Bard’s option?

He’s not on an obligation, but it’s the same principle. If you can find players you think are good enough in the Premier League and outperform their price tag, you want them in the building.

Were you always confident Bahoya would get done?

You’re never confident on deadline day because so much is beyond your control, so we knew who our very, very small shortlist was to go after if our initial target didn’t work. The minute it was clear it wasn’t going to happen, we pivoted to Jean-Matteo.

We had some very positive indications very quickly from both the club and the player. Even then, it becomes an execution game.

How much did Joe Rodon’s injury trigger the decision to go after Bard?

The left-back discussion has been going on all off-season, but certainly Joe being out for two months affected that, because one of the solutions to fill his role is James Justin. It wasn’t the sole factor, but it certainly influenced things. I would say the relative priority of who to go after may have changed a bit after that weekend.

What can you say about the manager’s future?

First and foremost, Daniel’s done a fantastic job here, and we’re thrilled with the last couple of seasons. We want to keep it going, keep building the long-term project. And so we were trying to find a solution with him long-term.

It’s also important to note for our supporters (that) the ongoing operating relationship between Daniel and Adam and myself has never been better. The level of collaboration and coordination this summer was truly excellent.

Getting our top targets in, talking every day, it’s a testament to Adam and Daniel both. I know some might fear a deal not being done might cause things to fall apart behind the scenes, but it’s actually been the opposite of that.

They’re really, really strong right now and delivering at a very, very high level. As for the contract discussions themselves, Daniel and I, Daniel’s team and I, have had really good chats for the last three months, and we’re all on the same page as far as what we want to accomplish: the long-term project.

We simply haven’t got the deal done yet, but we’re working towards a solution. As broader context for people, extensions might feel like they are relatively straightforward because you’re both at the same company already, but I think of them as being quite difficult, even more than first-time signings because, unlike signing him back in 2023 or doing a deadline day deal, the time pressure is far reduced.

We have the time to get it right as far as what he wants and what we want, and to deliver on that long-term project. I know it feels like it’s taking a long time, but Ethan (Ampadu)’s deal took over a year to get done.

We tried to get it done last spring, and then last summer, and then last fall, and then in January, and it wasn’t done until June. Similarly, the Rodon, (Jayden) Bogle, Aaronson deals — all those guys took months to finish.

I wouldn’t read into it taking us some time as a problem. It just means we’re trying to get it right because we have time to get it right. As long as we’re still operating together as a group, I’m not worried, and we’re doing great on that front.

That’s the long answer. The short answer is he’s done great, we want him to be here long-term, and we’re working on it. And when there’s news, we’ll share it with you.

Jed York has generated headlines in the U.S. recently. Can you explain how significant, or not, his role is at Leeds United?

As far as the financial ownership structure is concerned, Jed is a person of significant control at Companies House. Operationally, he’s very hands-off.

At both clubs, San Francisco 49ers and Leeds, his management approach is to find people who he thinks can do the job and then give them the space and capital to operate, and let them take it from there. I’ve known him for 20 years, but as far as day-to-day, he’s really not involved at all.

At Leeds it’s Paraag and I, Daniel and the club staff, and the board running things.

Will there be any repercussions for York from the Premier League?

No. My expectation is (that), from both the Premier League and the IFR (Independent Football Regulator), this would be an open-and-shut matter pretty quickly.