One signing was acquired but some fans worry about the safety-proof status of the Leeds squad for the second half of the season
Isaac Johnson Leeds United reporter
07:00, 03 Feb 2026
Daniel Farke's squad is now set for the rest of the season
View Image
Daniel Farke's squad is now set for the rest of the season(Image: Carl Recine/Getty Images)
Daniel Farke will face the microphones tomorrow but board figures have left Leeds United fans with a number of unanswered questions.
Ultimately, only one loan signing was brought in, with it outlined from the outset that profit and sustainability limits meant that temporary deals were always more likely. Yet the chase of Jorgen Strand Larsen changed the complexion of the window.
Of course, he ended up at Crystal Palace in a £48m deal, which is £8m more than Leeds were prepared to pay. The backdrop is that Leeds had no PSR headspace anyway and would have had to find a sanction sale before June 30 - a risky game in itself.
What’s more, the money would have come out of next year’s PSR budget. Yet that still begs the first question…
Why were Leeds willing to spend £40m on Strand Larsen but not on another player?
Strand Larsen was seen as a ‘unique’ market opportunity that arose due to Wolves’ malaise at the foot of the table. Not just that, he was seen as a long-term investment at the age of 25.
It was underlined that there were few other suitable striker options mid-season. Wolves knew they needed to sell this window to get the best price for their striker, with relegation set to wipe off a large portion of his value.
Yet there is valid question to be asked about why Leeds did not take a punt, even a reduced one, on other areas of the squad such as left-back or a new goalkeeper. Which leads onto the next point.
What was the stance on a new goalkeeper?
Daniel Farke dropped a heavy hint that he would have liked a new goalkeeper through the door this month, following Saturday’s defeat to Arsenal. The potential of a deadline day deal for a shot-stopper was dismissed by insiders, who underlined that four options are currently on the books.
Yet it seems clear that Farke is not overly enamoured with any of them, having dropped summer signing Lucas Perri to the bench and being forced to promote back-up Karl Darlow for a second season running.
Perri had arrived with the view of being an upgrade on Darlow. Goalkeeper was not on the club’s transfer agenda a few weeks ago when Perri was dropped.
Whether Farke always wanted a new ‘keeper and was rebuffed or whether his request came later in the window - or maybe there simply were not ample options out there - the truth remains that Leeds will have to deal with what they have got for the rest of the campaign.
It would be interesting to hear how such goalkeeper conversations played out.
Why no striker alternative to Strand Larsen?
This may be the one fans struggle with the most. As mentioned above, the club were only going to dip for market opportunities but there is a difference between not making a move for anyone and then, at the other end of the scale, willing to shell out £40m for one.
This question feeds into the former two; why be willing to spend so much on one striker and not another? But more to the point, what was the thinking behind not looking at a back-up alternative to Strand Larsen at all, not even on loan?
The answer might hark back to the criteria of needing someone who is of good enough quality and is affordable. But still, to only have one target in an area that is looking fragile should Dominic Calvert-Lewin get injured will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of some supporters.
FOLLOW OUR LUFC FACEBOOK PAGE! Latest news, analysis and more on our Leeds United FB page
What was the thinking behind the stance over Joel Piroe?
This one probably has an easier explanation, but some fans will still want this asked of the club. For context, there were multiple enquiries about the striker from Championship and overseas clubs but Piroe was adamant on staying.
Leeds respected that stance, especially with his contract running until 2027, and so all approaches were ultimately futile.
Article continues below
That stance in itself is not only a respectable one for United themselves in homage to last season’s efforts, but also because allowing him to go without guarantee of a replacement would be negligent.
Piroe might be down on the list in the striker pecking order but it’s not like he has been ignored - he has been used from the bench in several matches.
Still, that is not necessarily reason enough alone himself to keep him. There is cause to ask why Leeds decided not to put Piroe up for sale and chance their arm, but it seems the safety-first approach won out.