curlacious
Don’t look at me. I’m irrelevant.
- Aug 29, 2017
- 2,130
- 10,107
A new contract with a big fat release clause please
Harry Kane
- Thread starter RichSpur58
- Start date
Andertons_Right_Boot
Well-Known Member
- Mar 2, 2019
- 404
- 867
Oh for sure
I don’t think anyone would doubt that a new contract would only mean one more year
Fuck that, why give him that? If he wants to sign a new contract and stay, great. But if it's just a tool for him to leave next summer I'd rather just we kept him for 3 years and let him go for free. Having him for 3 years is worth way more than £80-100m next summer.
robotsonic
Well-Known Member
- Aug 20, 2013
- 2,458
- 11,396
The meltdown at City if he stays will be exquisite, having wasted their entire summer on him. They haven't even been linked to a single other player that I've seen, and if they do go in for anyone now they'll be rinsed
curlacious
Don’t look at me. I’m irrelevant.
- Aug 29, 2017
- 2,130
- 10,107
He wants to go, let him go for the right price, on our terms. Aston Villa gave that to Grealish. It's fair. Stay with us unless another club matches our (big) valuation one day. It embraces the reality of the situation the club and player are in.
Snarfalicious
Well-Known Member
- Jul 15, 2012
- 15,745
- 72,240
I just want us to commit to a gentleman’s agreement with City on his sale and then renege on the deal when it comes to signing off on everything. For me that’s the ideal ending to this scenario.
Our terms would be market value. Setting a fee a year in advance would very likely not represent market value. The club has all the power and has a responsibility to get the maximum value if he is sold. He has disrespected the club and the fans, we owe him nothing.
curlacious
Don’t look at me. I’m irrelevant.
- Aug 29, 2017
- 2,130
- 10,107
Usually release clauses are way above market value. So if he does go, we'd be getting a great deal. Obviously there's a small chance that the market changes significantly and the clause is a bargain, but that's incredibly unlikely.
TheWook
Here
- Jan 8, 2021
- 1,020
- 4,111
It’s hard to understand finances on a stadium when you are council tenants
Danfunkel
Well-Known Member
- Jan 31, 2013
- 1,814
- 5,847
They're incredibly salty we can actually make decent money without having to sell our soul and give reacharound's to a bunch of oil merchants. Bless them.
rez9000
Any point?
- Feb 8, 2007
- 11,942
- 21,098
Bugger me, there's some real scum in that fanbase.
So why would they buy him for "way above market value" next summer and not at what we value him at this summer? You are only handing away power when doing something like that. He has 3 years left on his deal, there is no reason at all to do it.
curlacious
Don’t look at me. I’m irrelevant.
- Aug 29, 2017
- 2,130
- 10,107
They would if they are desperate and really keen on Kane. Which they might be. They did it with Grealish. He's not worth £100m.
The reason to do it is because he then signs the deal and we have a settled player on our hands and if he does go we guarantee a sizeable fee we are happy with, no faffing. No more months of stand offs and speculation.
What you are describing is basically the situation we have now. Kane would be sold today if City offered a fee we were happy with. The only difference is that you for some reason think we should appease Kane, weaken our position and give up our ability to keep Kane even if they offered a fee that would represent market value. It's nonsensical to give away that power.
Also, Alderweireld had a release clause, didn't stop months of speculation and rumors of bids below the release clause.
walworthyid
David Ginola
- Oct 25, 2004
- 7,059
- 10,242
Now now!
No Southern, entitled snobbery please!
Grew up on a council estate in elephant and Castle and damned proud of it!
rez9000
Any point?
- Feb 8, 2007
- 11,942
- 21,098
I get where you're coming from, ili. I'm of that thinking myself if it were realistic. Regrettably, and it is regrettable, the reality is that in the absence of a new contract, this game will be played out again next summer.
We may have won the PR war this summer, but next summer, especially if Kane knuckles down and plays well this season, our stance will be met with far less sympathy. And, again regrettably, that's an important aspect of the situation - one reason the club has been able to take a stronger stance this summer has been because of the ineptitude of Charlie Kane and the negative publicity that's rained down on their heads. But by all accounts, CK has been pushed aside and Harry will likely find other, much more effective, representation over the course of the season who will then play the game far better next summer, weakening our position.
Whereas if we get Kane signed to a new contract with a definitive release clause we can protect ourselves against that to an extent. We'd be saying that we value the player at this price - if you meet that price, then we will listen. And then we're protected against the shitehawks like Jason Burt at the Telegraph who are pushing for the transfer to happen now because we can quite justifiably say that unless the price is met, we aren't listening.
In an ideal situation, yes, make him honour his contract in its entirety. Unfortunately, it just doesn't happen these days. It should. But it doesn't.
slartibartfast
Grunge baby forever
- Oct 21, 2012
- 18,320
- 33,955
I think the point he is making is, at present, if we dont want to sell him then he cant go.
Spculation is just that, speculation. If we're determined we're not going to sell unless it meets our valuation then speculate away.
Kane will have to accept that. He signed the deal. Nobody forced him. And I'm fairly sure this gentlemans agreement didn't include if anyone comes in for you you can go, providing they meet THEIR valuation of you lol.
