It’s a shame Spurs couldn’t give him a platform to win stuff, I hope he does leave and win some trophies. But for Abu Dhabi, who have won 67% of our domestic trophies since 2018, to be buying Kane and Grealish for £200m is depressing.
Which club owned by a local boy done good should he realistically sign for instead?
It’s not a case of me saying there are better alternatives as much as acknowledging how shitty that situation is. What any other club does or doesn’t stand for doesn’t make that any different.
Gary makes a good point - it’d be good to see a crop of England internationals together, just won’t be much fun watching the richest team on the planet win all the trophies again. Let alone for the reasons they’re doing it.
That's simply just what the game is now, unfortunately and it sold it's soul quite a while ago. A chunk of Man city fans don't even enjoy it. They've lost interest.
It is still entertaining and relatively special. It will always be great, but something is missing.
Football should improve again, and hopefully the money easy life overly protective always offended digital age boring nonsense side of the game, will hit a decline.
It is quite interesting. My father in law is a lifelong City fan and although he still watches them he openly admits he enjoyed it far more and felt more akin to the club when they were a normal club and not winning most games
Did Kane have a gun held to his head when he recently signed his multi year £1m a month contract?
No but I think it's been widely reported that a gentleman agreement regarding Kane leaving exists. Kane is pretty down to earth, he's not leaving for money, he's leaving to win trophies, I don't think anyone can begrudge the bloke that. In fact, I've seen very few Spurs fans criticise him which tells me everything I need to know.
Did Kane have a gun held to his head when he recently signed his multi year £1m a month contract?
No but I think it's been widely reported that a gentleman agreement regarding Kane leaving exists. Kane is pretty down to earth, he's not leaving for money, he's leaving to win trophies, I don't think anyone can begrudge the bloke that. In fact, I've seen very few Spurs fans criticise him which tells me everything I need to know.
I think you’ll see that change if he goes on strike.
And that is the problem with so called "gentleman's agreements". Unless the terms of that agreement is nailed down in black and white then there will always be a dispute of what was said and meant by one or both sides.
And that is the problem with so called "gentleman's agreements". Unless the terms of that agreement is nailed down in black and white then there will always be a dispute of what was said and meant by one or both sides.
The only agreement is what’s in the contract. He needs a new agent.
Did Kane have a gun held to his head when he recently signed his multi year £1m a month contract?
No but I think it's been widely reported that a gentleman agreement regarding Kane leaving exists. Kane is pretty down to earth, he's not leaving for money, he's leaving to win trophies, I don't think anyone can begrudge the bloke that. In fact, I've seen very few Spurs fans criticise him which tells me everything I need to know.
I think you’ll see that change if he goes on strike.
Possibly, but I do think most Spurs fan accept him leaving. At the end of the day, it's better for all parties if Kane goes, however he forces the move through.
It’s a shame Spurs couldn’t give him a platform to win stuff, I hope he does leave and win some trophies. But for Abu Dhabi, who have won 67% of our domestic trophies since 2018, to be buying Kane and Grealish for £200m is depressing.
Which club owned by a local boy done good should he realistically sign for instead?
It’s not a case of me saying there are better alternatives as much as acknowledging how shitty that situation is. What any other club does or doesn’t stand for doesn’t make that any different.
Gary makes a good point - it’d be good to see a crop of England internationals together, just won’t be much fun watching the richest team on the planet win all the trophies again. Let alone for the reasons they’re doing it.
That's simply just what the game is now, unfortunately and it sold it's soul quite a while ago. A chunk of Man city fans don't even enjoy it. They've lost interest.
It is still entertaining and relatively special. It will always be great, but something is missing.
Football should improve again, and hopefully the money easy life overly protective always offended digital age boring nonsense side of the game, will hit a decline.
It is quite interesting. My father in law is a lifelong City fan and although he still watches them he openly admits he enjoyed it far more and felt more akin to the club when they were a normal club and not winning most games
A guy I used to work with was a Chelsea season ticket holder his entire life before Abrahmovich came along and priced him out of the club. Now he's a Charlton season ticket holder.
Kane won't turn up Spurs will fine him They'll sell him Levy will want the money. The player 'usually' wins this one especially when his value is +£100m Levy said you can go if we don't win trophies Hate his actions but Levy has had it coming
And that is the problem with so called "gentleman's agreements". Unless the terms of that agreement is nailed down in black and white then there will always be a dispute of what was said and meant by one or both sides.
The only agreement is what’s in the contract. He needs a new agent.
His brother is his agent I believe. Easiest gig in the world
If the right to leave in search of trophy’s was so important to Kane why didn’t he insist on it being an explicit term of his contract? Release clauses are pretty standard so it’s not as though he would have been asking for something outrageous. If Spurs agreed then there wouldn’t have been this issue, if they refused then he would know where he stood.
I don’t blame him for wanting to go somewhere to win trophy’s, but not turning up to training to try and force a move is muggy behaviour.
And that is the problem with so called "gentleman's agreements". Unless the terms of that agreement is nailed down in black and white then there will always be a dispute of what was said and meant by one or both sides.
The only agreement is what’s in the contract. He needs a new agent.
His brother is his agent I believe. Easiest gig in the world
his brother is getting pelters from the Spurs fans that I know.
Did Kane have a gun held to his head when he recently signed his multi year £1m a month contract?
No but I think it's been widely reported that a gentleman agreement regarding Kane leaving exists. Kane is pretty down to earth, he's not leaving for money, he's leaving to win trophies, I don't think anyone can begrudge the bloke that. In fact, I've seen very few Spurs fans criticise him which tells me everything I need to know.
Well, it's widely reported that Kane says he had a gentlemen's agreement with Levy and that Levy denies it. Personally, I find it hard to believe that in the middle of contract negotiations with Kane represented by an agent and lawyers, Kane decided to rely on a verbal agreement when it would be perfectly straightforward to insert a clause into the contract.
Kane signed a six year contract. It gave him financial security. If he'd had a career destroying injury a week after signing it, he woudl still have got paid for six years. This is the downside. I quite like Kane but this is dreadful behaviour by him and I hope it goes unrewarded.
Did Kane have a gun held to his head when he recently signed his multi year £1m a month contract?
No but I think it's been widely reported that a gentleman agreement regarding Kane leaving exists. Kane is pretty down to earth, he's not leaving for money, he's leaving to win trophies, I don't think anyone can begrudge the bloke that. In fact, I've seen very few Spurs fans criticise him which tells me everything I need to know.
Well, it's widely reported that Kane says he had a gentlemen's agreement with Levy and that Levy denies it. Personally, I find it hard to believe that in the middle of contract negotiations with Kane represented by an agent and lawyers, Kane decided to rely on a verbal agreement when it would be perfectly straightforward to insert a clause into the contract.
Kane signed a six year contract. It gave him financial security. If he'd had a career destroying injury a week after signing it, he woudl still have got paid for six years. This is the downside. I quite like Kane but this is dreadful behaviour by him and I hope it goes unrewarded.
Is it that hard to believe? Kane likes Tottenham and would ideally leave on good terms. Levy wouldn't ahve wanted a release clause because the market changes so rapidly that reasonable release clauses can look cheap as time goes by. Kane also wouldn't ahve wanted to be trapped in by one of the ridiculous release clauses they give some players in Spain - Messi's is £630m - so it's not that unlikely that they would agree that Kane could be sold if they didn't win any trophies and the right offer came in. What it then hinges on is if Tottenham are willing to listen to offers or not. If Spurs are saying they will let Kane go for the right offer and it's not totally ridiculous then he needs to get himself into training. If, as was reported when Kane first asked to leave, Levy isn't even entertaining any offers and will reject anything that comes in then I can see why Kane would be upset and feel lied to. It all depends on what the truth of the situation is
I hope Joe Lewis tells him to train with the youth team for two years
I can't stand the fact that so many ex footballers and pundits are saying he should be allowed to go if he wants rather than criticizing him for basically going on strike
If this is true then I'm glad Kane has done it. Levy apparently told him if he signed a new contract then Spurs would let him go if they continued to fail to win any trophies. Now it's that time and Levy is refusing to honour a gentleman's agreement, most likely because he sees Kane as a nice boy who will get his head down and feel uncomfortable downing tools. Someone really needs to take Levy down a peg or two so I hope Kane's the one to do it
Kane has been told he can go if the price is met. Lecy is protecting THFC and protecting one of his main assets. Every player at Spurs will always have a price on their heads, its the way our business model works. If City are considering actually paying £100m for Grealish, thats puts the price Spurs want for Kane into context and it certainly isn't unreasonable. But, City would be bonkers paying it as they could probably get Haaland for less.
[By the sounds of it, Spurs have got deals all lined up with the money, and they are waiting patiently for City to show them the money. Struggling to see what Levy has done wrong here in all honesty (and trust me, there's nothing more than I like doing is finding fault in him!)]
They probably could yes but the difference is if they sign Kane you can see him playing there for 4-5 years. With Haaland managed by Raiola and his dad seemingly wanting money for no reason other than being his Dad, you'd have to put up with a 'Haaland to Madrid' charade every summer.
It's a tricky situation as player power usually wins the day in these cases.
Do Spurs really want to keep an unhappy player who might not put as much effort in, might not be so dedicated, might not be so keen to rush back if he gets another ankle injury, when they could get 130m+. A big call for Levy to make.
At the same time i've no idea why on earth you'd sign a 6 year contract when 4 would've done, and if you did feel the need to sign for that long, why would you not insist on certain clauses like a release fee or you can go if the team isn't in the Champions league etc.
Levy is a businessman and knows the time of day - he will want everything that suits the club in the contract and anything that doesn't by way of a verbal agreement - so he can then deny either its existence or the basis of that. Harry Kane and his brother have been ridiculously silly in not nailing this. They won't be the first or the last to do so.
But I keep coming back to this. Kane signing a long term contract protected Spurs far more than it protected Kane. Levy wants to play hard ball now on the back of a contract that he knew would get them top dollar for Kane. Let him. But he and Spurs supporters shouldn't then moan when Kane is out for 12 weeks instead of 6 the next time he turns his ankle because there will be absolutely nothing in Kane's contract about him having to play as many minutes of every PL game he could whether he is 100% or 50% fit. He chose to play previously when not fully fit more for the benefit of the club than himself.
What's hard to believe is that they agreed on something during a contract negotiation and then didn't put it in the contract.
I've been in negoatiations with Levy myself and believe me, there's no way you don't get everything in black and white with him.
Unless of course he had no intention of honouring something that didn't work in his favour, in which case he would have been delighted not to get it in black and white for exactly the reason we're seeing now
Did Kane have a gun held to his head when he recently signed his multi year £1m a month contract?
No but I think it's been widely reported that a gentleman agreement regarding Kane leaving exists. Kane is pretty down to earth, he's not leaving for money, he's leaving to win trophies, I don't think anyone can begrudge the bloke that. In fact, I've seen very few Spurs fans criticise him which tells me everything I need to know.
Well, it's widely reported that Kane says he had a gentlemen's agreement with Levy and that Levy denies it. Personally, I find it hard to believe that in the middle of contract negotiations with Kane represented by an agent and lawyers, Kane decided to rely on a verbal agreement when it would be perfectly straightforward to insert a clause into the contract.
Kane signed a six year contract. It gave him financial security. If he'd had a career destroying injury a week after signing it, he woudl still have got paid for six years. This is the downside. I quite like Kane but this is dreadful behaviour by him and I hope it goes unrewarded.
Is it that hard to believe? Kane likes Tottenham and would ideally leave on good terms. Levy wouldn't ahve wanted a release clause because the market changes so rapidly that reasonable release clauses can look cheap as time goes by. Kane also wouldn't ahve wanted to be trapped in by one of the ridiculous release clauses they give some players in Spain - Messi's is £630m - so it's not that unlikely that they would agree that Kane could be sold if they didn't win any trophies and the right offer came in. What it then hinges on is if Tottenham are willing to listen to offers or not. If Spurs are saying they will let Kane go for the right offer and it's not totally ridiculous then he needs to get himself into training. If, as was reported when Kane first asked to leave, Levy isn't even entertaining any offers and will reject anything that comes in then I can see why Kane would be upset and feel lied to. It all depends on what the truth of the situation is
Agreed, I can't see how a clause works in this case. In fact, how many transfer deals in the Prem are done by clauses being met, it's much more of a European thing. Kane clearly wanted success at Spurs and it's looking increasingly unlikely, he knows its time and Levy will push for every penny he can get. Understandable from all sides.
Comments
Spurs will fine him
They'll sell him
Levy will want the money.
The player 'usually' wins this one especially when his value is +£100m
Levy said you can go if we don't win trophies
Hate his actions but Levy has had it coming
I don’t blame him for wanting to go somewhere to win trophy’s, but not turning up to training to try and force a move is muggy behaviour.
Kane signed a six year contract. It gave him financial security. If he'd had a career destroying injury a week after signing it, he woudl still have got paid for six years. This is the downside. I quite like Kane but this is dreadful behaviour by him and I hope it goes unrewarded.
I've been in negoatiations with Levy myself and believe me, there's no way you don't get everything in black and white with him.
I can't stand the fact that so many ex footballers and pundits are saying he should be allowed to go if he wants rather than criticizing him for basically going on strike
Do Spurs really want to keep an unhappy player who might not put as much effort in, might not be so dedicated, might not be so keen to rush back if he gets another ankle injury, when they could get 130m+. A big call for Levy to make.
At the same time i've no idea why on earth you'd sign a 6 year contract when 4 would've done, and if you did feel the need to sign for that long, why would you not insist on certain clauses like a release fee or you can go if the team isn't in the Champions league etc.
But I keep coming back to this. Kane signing a long term contract protected Spurs far more than it protected Kane. Levy wants to play hard ball now on the back of a contract that he knew would get them top dollar for Kane. Let him. But he and Spurs supporters shouldn't then moan when Kane is out for 12 weeks instead of 6 the next time he turns his ankle because there will be absolutely nothing in Kane's contract about him having to play as many minutes of every PL game he could whether he is 100% or 50% fit. He chose to play previously when not fully fit more for the benefit of the club than himself.
Even that Spurs doc, geezer made my skin crawl.