Leeds United would break eight year, seven-figure transfer fee duck by signing Matt Mills

The Matt Mills to Leeds United rumor isn't that new. It has been floating around for the last few weeks with various tabloids, newspapers, and blogs reporting that Leeds are weighing up a £1 million transfer for the Bolton Wanderers defender. As the Bolton News put it: "no formal offer has yet been received by Wanderers."

Matt Mills signed for Bolton Wanderers last summer with the Trotters having shelled out a pretty remarkable £2 million to Leicester City for the central defender. Over the course of the 2012/13 season, Mill would make just 18 appearances for Bolton Wanderers. For a period early in the campaign, he was the central defender of choice, getting the nod over Tim Ream. A thigh injury derailed Mills' season and barring a couple of substitute cameo outings, the defender was done. Tim Ream and Craig Dawson would occupy the defensive spot next to Zat Knight for the rest of the year.

Leeds United had just recently hired Brian McDermott as their manager and the man in charge is looking to rebuild his team. He has experience with Mills when both were at Reading for what were, arguably, Mills' best years. The rumored transfer fee is £1 million and that is the interesting part.

The last time that Leeds paid seven figures for a player was at the beginning of the 2005/06 season when they purchased Richard Cresswell from Preston North End for £1.15 million. That's right, Leeds have not paid seven figures for a player in some 7.5 years. It was in that season that they lost the Play-off Final to Watford 3-0. The following season, they finished dead last in the Championship and were relegated to League One.

Leeds United were taken over by GFH Capital, a Middle East-based private equity group in December 2012 and the Matt Mills move could be a new dawn, in terms of spending, for the club. It is a move that would likely benefit all parties as Dougie Freedman is keen to stamp his own mark on Bolton Wanderers.

Correction: The source website for the information had an issue with its layout, leading to confusion in the information. Commentor MaxShady pointed out the mistake and the correct information in the comments. The post has been updated to reflect the corrections.