Harry Kane

[hamsup_sotong]

wouldn't it be the ultimate, if kane goes to shitty.. wins the league.. then have it taken away due to that and then subsequently gets relegated

 

[fortworthspur]

C’mon Kane be a gentleman and not a brat.
To turn around and say he is exhausted and cannot start the season is bull.
It will leave a very bad taste.
Do not let us down.

he's dealing with Levy. Good faith doesnt go very far.

 

[SelbYido]

Spurs through and through and talking of his joy at leaving us? (Allegedly).

I get the ambitious part but if it was me I wouldn’t be talking of joy at leaving my club.

It's the Express who put antagonist caps lock in, to be fair!

"England's football HERO Harry Kane FORCED to WASTE his talent at lackluster Spurs"

"Man City's MEGA offer for Kane REJECTED by pitiful SPURS"

"MEGAN MARKLE TO BLAME!" ?

 

[OnTheShelf]

Just been reading this. It sounds pretty serious. The fact some judges finally stood up to them is promising.

As expected from extremely rich people it seems they have incredibly good legal people getting them out of FFP violations predominantly by stalling and gagging orders.

They pretty much got off the UEFA case on a technicality.

The suggestion that they made £600m more commercial income than Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal over a ten year period (of course all from UAE companies!) is absolutely damning. At arms length they would be expected to make less than all of those clubs regardless of their success on the pitch.

The crazy thing is their owners are plenty rich enough to put the investment in but they have still tried to cheat the system by trying to pretend it's legit income.

They have won multiple trophies paying huge wages they can only afford with fake commercial income. Its blatant cheating and if there was any justice they would be relegated for this (I'm being serious). I fully suspect they'll get a slap on the wrist unfortunately.

Their principal sponsor, Etihad Airlines, lost $1.52 billion in 2017, $1.28 billion in 2018, $870 million in 2019 and another $1.7 billion in 2020. It has lost $5.62 billion since 2016 but still finds the money to provide City with the most lucrative sponsorship in the EPL?
Pure economic doping.

 

[Gilzeanking]

The other English lads not starting the season too ?

...Or brother pressure involved here in a series of unpleasant moves upcoming. We've done the 160 mill/400k press thing and now the
not starting thing . Another of these in a week or two and we'll know we're seeing a plan unfold imo .

 

[JacoZA]

The other English lads not starting the season too ?

...Or brother pressure involved here in a series of unpleasant moves upcoming. We've done the 160 mill/400k press thing and now the
not starting thing . Another of these in a week or two and we'll know we're seeing a plan unfold imo .

If Charlie wants to play games, I suggest he start with an easier opponent than DL.

 

[ikky]

Fuck City and their claim of not paying 200m for Kane. Either pay up or fuck off. Especially when they refused to sell us Sancho as part of the Walker deal ( yeah I’m still bitter about that ).

 

[spursfan77]

Just been reading this. It sounds pretty serious. The fact some judges finally stood up to them is promising.

As expected from extremely rich people it seems they have incredibly good legal people getting them out of FFP violations predominantly by stalling and gagging orders.

They pretty much got off the UEFA case on a technicality.

The suggestion that they made £600m more commercial income than Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal over a ten year period (of course all from UAE companies!) is absolutely damning. At arms length they would be expected to make less than all of those clubs regardless of their success on the pitch.

The crazy thing is their owners are plenty rich enough to put the investment in but they have still tried to cheat the system by trying to pretend it's legit income.

They have won multiple trophies paying huge wages they can only afford with fake commercial income. Its blatant cheating and if there was any justice they would be relegated for this (I'm being serious). I fully suspect they'll get a slap on the wrist unfortunately.

This is worth a read too. It’s by the Manchester evening news Man City reporter and is pretty comprehensive. I’ve copy and pasted it as that website is worse that the daily express for reading!

Man City's court defeat over FFP investigation secrecy explained
The Court of Appeal decided that Manchester City's bid, supported by the Premier League, to stop publication of details of the ongoing investigation should be thrown out. But what does it all mean, and what have we learned?

The news that Manchester City have lost a court appeal to keep secret details of their financial fair play battle with the Premier League, elicited some odd responses.
Some opposition fans gleefully thought it was a sure sign that the Blues ’ edifice, which s tood firm against Uefa’s best efforts, is being reduced to rubble by the league’s lawyers.
Some City fans have been worrying that the whole Football Leaks issue is about to blow up again, and that this time City might not be victorious.
But what did the Court of Appeal decision actually mean, and what has it revealed about the ongoing battle between the Premier League and City?

Here are the key questions and answers, as far as we know:
When did the Premier League start investigating City?

The League has its own financial fair play rules, separate to those of Uefa, so when German newspaper Der Spiegel published hacked emails that it claimed proved the Blues had subverted the rules of both organisations, both Uefa and the Premier League started their own investigations.
Uefa’s investigation appeared rushed, was beset by leaks to the media and ultimately ended in a two-year European ban which was overturned when City took their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
But this week’s decision has revealed that City and the Premier League agreed, right from the start, to conduct the investigation in private.
It has been so hush-hush that there was some speculation that the League’s investigation might have been quietly abandoned following the CAS dismissal of Uefa’s case last summer.

So how did the matter end in court?
Just as Uefa did, the Premier League demanded that City hand over documents and other information that they believe are pertinent to their investigation.
City resisted Uefa’s demands, and did the same with the Premier League - in both cases claiming that the investigators were not impartial and as such had no right to demand sensitive financial information.
The League responded by forcing through a change of their own rules to try to force City into arbitration over the matter, but City resisted on the same grounds, and when the league persisted, City themselves took the matter to the Commercial Court to be resolved.

What did the Commercial Court say?
They threw out City’s case in March, deciding that the Premier League was acting in line with its own rules, to which City, as a member, had signed up.
That meant City would have to hand over the documents as requested, or be in breach of their obligations as a Premier League member.
Both parties have remained silent, but it is highly likely that City have since complied with the demand and handed over the relevant documents - especially as they are expected to be the same material on which Uefa based its failed prosecution.
So how did this all come into the open?
The judge who presided over the case, Mrs Justice Moulder, in relating her decision to City and the Premier League, said that she was intending to make public the reasons for her decision.

She felt it was important that, in the interests of justice being seen to be done, that the reasoning be made a matter of public record, even though both City and the Premier League wanted it to be kept private.
So City appealed, with the support of the Premier League, but the Court of Appeal backed Justice Moulder and said that it was important to make public the legal reasons for her decision.
She stated: “The confidential nature of arbitration had to be weighed against the public interest in ensuring appropriate standards of fairness in the conduct of arbitrations”, and decided that as no sensitive information would be disclosed, there was no reason for her judgment to be kept private.
So what will be made public?
The decision does NOT mean, as some opposition fans gleefully hope, that every lurid detail of the investigation will be laid bare, to be picked over.
The only thing that will be released, other than the few details contained in Monday’s decision which are already out there, are the legal arguments between City and the Premier League over whether the Blues have to submit to the League’s arbitration rules, plus the judge’s reasoning in finding in the League’s favour.
The judge in the original case herself said her decision does “not contain any significant details relating to the disclosure dispute”, and then that “there was nothing about the details of the underlying dispute” in her judgment - so it is not going to give us any juicy detail about the League’s actual case against City, when published.
So are City going to be charged with anything by the Premier League?
The court decision pointed out City’s stance that "the arbitral proceedings relate to an ongoing and confidential investigatory and disciplinary process which is still in its early stages" and that it may be that no charges will ever be brought against it.
The truth is that this decision lets us know that the League is still investigating City, but that the whole affair is dragging on - Chancellor Sir Julian Flaux, who heard the appeal, made that point himself, saying it was two-and-a-half years since the investigation started.
So why are City throwing up objections, and even going to court, when that led to the “secret” investigation being publicised?
It’s hard to tell whether City genuinely feel that the bodies appointed by the Premier League to investigate the matter were not impartial, or whether they are simply taking the route of opposing everything.

The League seems to think that City are simply throwing up as many barriers as possible to their investigation. The judge in the original case said her judgment “made reference to the PL's submission that the club's challenge was tactical”, which implies that City are simply being obstructive in objecting to the make-up and jurisdiction of the bodies appointed to look at the matter. But the judge also says she accepts City’s assertion that these were not tactics, but genuine grievances.
Some of Uefa’s charges against City were “time-barred” - that is, they fell foul of their own rules which state that offences that took place more than five years before could not result in a charge. Does this apply here?
The published Premier League rules on financial fair play do not explicitly have a time bar, and some have seized on that to mean City will face a more far-reaching investigation, going back as far as 2013, when they introduced their FFP rules.
However, the Premier League rules DO state that the rules are subject to UK law - and the Limitation Act states that any action for breach of contract has a time bar of six years.
So, as in the Uefa case, which was only five years, City could claim that any alleged breaches said to have taken place more than six years before any charges, are invalid under UK law. As the Premier League are still investigating, and have brought no charges, the limitation could stop them from charging City for anything that happened before 2015, at the earliest.
So why are the League bothering, if they seem to be running out of time to charge City?
They could seek to charge City with something else, such as obstruction or concealment.
The only success that Uefa got in their case which went before CAS was to successfully argue that City had been uncooperative in their investigation - and though City claimed this was because they had no faith in the impartiality of Uefa’s investigation, CAS agreed with the governing body and allowed a fine of ten million euros, reduced from Uefa’s original 30million.
As always with UK law, there are grey areas, and the Premier League could seek various means of getting around the six-year limitation.
What details did we learn from the court’s decision that we didn't know before?
1. Principally, that the Premier League investigation is still very much alive, and has not been quietly ditched.
2. That the League and the club agreed right from the start to keep the investigation confidential, and have even used encrypted technology for all correspondence - wise, given that the whole thing sprang from City’s own email system being hacked. So keen were both parties to keep the matter private that they joined forces to urge the judge in the commercial court case not to publish her decision - and failed.
3. That City resisted handing over documents to both the League’s appointed commission and to the arbitration panel they set up, claiming they had no jurisdiction and were not impartial.
4. That the league changed its own disciplinary and dispute resolution procedures in order to press ahead with their investigation.
5. One reason the appeal was dismissed was that the Chancellor decided that the public had a right to know why the Premier League investigation was taking so long, having been made public in March 2019 “but has hardly advanced since”.
6. That the Chancellor hearing the appeal was critical of the slowness of the investigation - in the same time period that Uefa’s investigation was conducted, charges brought, judgment and punishment handed out and then overturned by an independent court, the Premier League has still not got as far as bringing any charges.
The Chancellor said: “It is surprising, and a matter of legitimate public concern, that so little progress has been made after two-and-a-half years - during which, it may be noted, the Club has twice been crowned as Premier League champions.”
So what happens now?
We should see the judge’s original judgment published in the next week or two, but Justice Moulder made it plain that it contains no real detail of the actual investigation into City.
The Premier League’s investigation continues, but the longer it goes on, the more they run the risk of finding any charges on actual breaches being time-barred under UK law.

 

[Zippy1980]

Teddy is not a spurs legend

Yes he screwed us over in search of trophies. It was his prerogative but ‘Legends’ don’t do that.

 

[Wheeler Dealer]

This is worth a read too. It’s by the Manchester evening news Man City reporter and is pretty comprehensive. I’ve copy and pasted it as that website is worse that the daily express for reading!

Man City's court defeat over FFP investigation secrecy explained
The Court of Appeal decided that Manchester City's bid, supported by the Premier League, to stop publication of details of the ongoing investigation should be thrown out. But what does it all mean, and what have we learned?

The news that Manchester City have lost a court appeal to keep secret details of their financial fair play battle with the Premier League, elicited some odd responses.
Some opposition fans gleefully thought it was a sure sign that the Blues ’ edifice, which s tood firm against Uefa’s best efforts, is being reduced to rubble by the league’s lawyers.
Some City fans have been worrying that the whole Football Leaks issue is about to blow up again, and that this time City might not be victorious.
But what did the Court of Appeal decision actually mean, and what has it revealed about the ongoing battle between the Premier League and City?

Here are the key questions and answers, as far as we know:
When did the Premier League start investigating City?

The League has its own financial fair play rules, separate to those of Uefa, so when German newspaper Der Spiegel published hacked emails that it claimed proved the Blues had subverted the rules of both organisations, both Uefa and the Premier League started their own investigations.
Uefa’s investigation appeared rushed, was beset by leaks to the media and ultimately ended in a two-year European ban which was overturned when City took their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
But this week’s decision has revealed that City and the Premier League agreed, right from the start, to conduct the investigation in private.
It has been so hush-hush that there was some speculation that the League’s investigation might have been quietly abandoned following the CAS dismissal of Uefa’s case last summer.

So how did the matter end in court?
Just as Uefa did, the Premier League demanded that City hand over documents and other information that they believe are pertinent to their investigation.
City resisted Uefa’s demands, and did the same with the Premier League - in both cases claiming that the investigators were not impartial and as such had no right to demand sensitive financial information.
The League responded by forcing through a change of their own rules to try to force City into arbitration over the matter, but City resisted on the same grounds, and when the league persisted, City themselves took the matter to the Commercial Court to be resolved.

What did the Commercial Court say?
They threw out City’s case in March, deciding that the Premier League was acting in line with its own rules, to which City, as a member, had signed up.
That meant City would have to hand over the documents as requested, or be in breach of their obligations as a Premier League member.
Both parties have remained silent, but it is highly likely that City have since complied with the demand and handed over the relevant documents - especially as they are expected to be the same material on which Uefa based its failed prosecution.
So how did this all come into the open?
The judge who presided over the case, Mrs Justice Moulder, in relating her decision to City and the Premier League, said that she was intending to make public the reasons for her decision.

She felt it was important that, in the interests of justice being seen to be done, that the reasoning be made a matter of public record, even though both City and the Premier League wanted it to be kept private.
So City appealed, with the support of the Premier League, but the Court of Appeal backed Justice Moulder and said that it was important to make public the legal reasons for her decision.
She stated: “The confidential nature of arbitration had to be weighed against the public interest in ensuring appropriate standards of fairness in the conduct of arbitrations”, and decided that as no sensitive information would be disclosed, there was no reason for her judgment to be kept private.
So what will be made public?
The decision does NOT mean, as some opposition fans gleefully hope, that every lurid detail of the investigation will be laid bare, to be picked over.
The only thing that will be released, other than the few details contained in Monday’s decision which are already out there, are the legal arguments between City and the Premier League over whether the Blues have to submit to the League’s arbitration rules, plus the judge’s reasoning in finding in the League’s favour.
The judge in the original case herself said her decision does “not contain any significant details relating to the disclosure dispute”, and then that “there was nothing about the details of the underlying dispute” in her judgment - so it is not going to give us any juicy detail about the League’s actual case against City, when published.
So are City going to be charged with anything by the Premier League?
The court decision pointed out City’s stance that "the arbitral proceedings relate to an ongoing and confidential investigatory and disciplinary process which is still in its early stages" and that it may be that no charges will ever be brought against it.
The truth is that this decision lets us know that the League is still investigating City, but that the whole affair is dragging on - Chancellor Sir Julian Flaux, who heard the appeal, made that point himself, saying it was two-and-a-half years since the investigation started.
So why are City throwing up objections, and even going to court, when that led to the “secret” investigation being publicised?
It’s hard to tell whether City genuinely feel that the bodies appointed by the Premier League to investigate the matter were not impartial, or whether they are simply taking the route of opposing everything.

The League seems to think that City are simply throwing up as many barriers as possible to their investigation. The judge in the original case said her judgment “made reference to the PL's submission that the club's challenge was tactical”, which implies that City are simply being obstructive in objecting to the make-up and jurisdiction of the bodies appointed to look at the matter. But the judge also says she accepts City’s assertion that these were not tactics, but genuine grievances.
Some of Uefa’s charges against City were “time-barred” - that is, they fell foul of their own rules which state that offences that took place more than five years before could not result in a charge. Does this apply here?
The published Premier League rules on financial fair play do not explicitly have a time bar, and some have seized on that to mean City will face a more far-reaching investigation, going back as far as 2013, when they introduced their FFP rules.
However, the Premier League rules DO state that the rules are subject to UK law - and the Limitation Act states that any action for breach of contract has a time bar of six years.
So, as in the Uefa case, which was only five years, City could claim that any alleged breaches said to have taken place more than six years before any charges, are invalid under UK law. As the Premier League are still investigating, and have brought no charges, the limitation could stop them from charging City for anything that happened before 2015, at the earliest.
So why are the League bothering, if they seem to be running out of time to charge City?
They could seek to charge City with something else, such as obstruction or concealment.
The only success that Uefa got in their case which went before CAS was to successfully argue that City had been uncooperative in their investigation - and though City claimed this was because they had no faith in the impartiality of Uefa’s investigation, CAS agreed with the governing body and allowed a fine of ten million euros, reduced from Uefa’s original 30million.
As always with UK law, there are grey areas, and the Premier League could seek various means of getting around the six-year limitation.
What details did we learn from the court’s decision that we didn't know before?
1. Principally, that the Premier League investigation is still very much alive, and has not been quietly ditched.
2. That the League and the club agreed right from the start to keep the investigation confidential, and have even used encrypted technology for all correspondence - wise, given that the whole thing sprang from City’s own email system being hacked. So keen were both parties to keep the matter private that they joined forces to urge the judge in the commercial court case not to publish her decision - and failed.
3. That City resisted handing over documents to both the League’s appointed commission and to the arbitration panel they set up, claiming they had no jurisdiction and were not impartial.
4. That the league changed its own disciplinary and dispute resolution procedures in order to press ahead with their investigation.
5. One reason the appeal was dismissed was that the Chancellor decided that the public had a right to know why the Premier League investigation was taking so long, having been made public in March 2019 “but has hardly advanced since”.
6. That the Chancellor hearing the appeal was critical of the slowness of the investigation - in the same time period that Uefa’s investigation was conducted, charges brought, judgment and punishment handed out and then overturned by an independent court, the Premier League has still not got as far as bringing any charges.
The Chancellor said: “It is surprising, and a matter of legitimate public concern, that so little progress has been made after two-and-a-half years - during which, it may be noted, the Club has twice been crowned as Premier League champions.”
So what happens now?
We should see the judge’s original judgment published in the next week or two, but Justice Moulder made it plain that it contains no real detail of the actual investigation into City.
The Premier League’s investigation continues, but the longer it goes on, the more they run the risk of finding any charges on actual breaches being time-barred under UK law.

No matter their guilt, there is no appetite from the football authorities to challenge, as City will employ the world's best and sharpest lawyers to find the smallest of loop holes to wriggle out of any allegations irrespective of cost.

 

[Scott Spur]

I can’t see City splashing out anything like what Spurs want for Kane now. There will be a financial spotlight on City that they will do everything they can to avoid……world record transfer fees don’t match their whiter than white defence now the case has been made public.

Enjoy the season at Spurs Harry and get that tit of a brother to button it

 

[Aphex]

He’s always been a bit strange. I never thought he particularly liked it here with us.

Yep Sheringham is weirdly bitter about Spurs, always trying to sell our best players to United. He was a hero growing up for a while but he actually seems like a bit of a prick nowadays.

 

[sundanceyid10]

Charlie Kane getting all sorts of abuse on Twitter . Clearly was a gooner but who really cares , him and Harry want the easy way out a move to city and free trophies on a plate for Kane’s legacy as a player . The facts are city will win leagues with or without Kane , The bigger question is why has he flopped in every final and semi when required by Spurs

I don’t like all the abuse though completely unnecessary, but Twitter is cesspit most of the time. Do any of these morons actually think the abuse is going to help matters, it’s more likely to push him out the door. Brain dead.

 

[sausage]

I don’t like all the abuse though completely unnecessary, but Twitter is cesspit most of the time. Do any of this morons actually think the abuse is going to help matters.

Not condoning it, but perhaps to put it far better than carragher, using Twitter and complaining about abuse is like moving to Qatar for the money and complaining that the weather is too hot.

 

[sausage]

Yep Sheringham is weirdly bitter about Spurs, always trying to sell our best players to United. He was a hero growing up for a while but he actually seems like a bit of a prick nowadays.

Been through it before, but he was always a prick. I think most of us have a 'Teddy is a prick' stories from the 90's.

 

[the yid]

I don’t like all the abuse though completely unnecessary, but Twitter is cesspit most of the time. Do any of these morons actually think the abuse is going to help matters, it’s more likely to push him out the door. Brain dead.

I don't have a problem with calling the bloke out for pretending to be a Spurs fan etc but whe it gets personal iswhereI draw the line

 

[sundanceyid10]

I don't have a problem with calling the bloke out for pretending to be a Spurs fan etc but whe it gets personal iswhereI draw the line

Let’s slag of his brother, that’s a good way to hope he stays .... I get people are upset and frustrated but if they think that will help, good luck with that.

 

[the yid]

Let’s slag of his brother, that’s a good way to hope he stays .... I get people are upset and frustrated but if they think that will help, good luck with that.

Slag off is personal! You can call someone out for acting like a bell end! To be clear I think both Kane and his brother have shown us fans and our club a complete lack of respect this summer gone about everything in the wrong way, we are allowed to be pissed off and frustrated at that and are allowed to call people out on that! Just don't turn round and personally attack the fella that's wrong

 

[buttons]

Haven’t seen it in here yet but apparently one of city’s top ITKs thinks the Grealish deal is done but Kane is complicated. Their plan B is just to role with what they’ve got.

 

[mattdefoe]

Kane should sit on the bench for the first game if he stays. Usually he’s the first one to rush back to play and he’s usually lethargic . Imagine how he’d play knowing he wants to leave whilst not having really had a pre season.

the club is bigger than one player