Harry Kane

[McFlash]

Excuse me - say what? Florida is the very hotspot of COVID Delta outbreak in the US, and there is no quarantine travelling from there to the UK?!? ??

Who’s in charge of the UK quarantine system - Charlie Kane?

Worse, Boris! ?

 

[JamieSpursCommunityUser]

I’m really struggling to think of who’d be between Berbs and Campbell. Who have we hated for their attitude/actions or the way in which they’ve left (I.e. not for footballing reasons)?

I'm not sure they are anywhere near the top, but should Adebayor, Arnesen, and Redknapp warrant a mention?

Didn't Adebayor go missing after the ACON? And cause a mutiny in the dressing room with three separate managers?

Arnesen wasn't here long enough to cause a fuss, though his treachery was the origins of the 20 year long Chelsea Spurs Boardroom feud.

Redknapp obviously couldn't possibly talk a new contract mid season until the England snub, and our subsequent collapse out of CL qualification, then it was imperative he had one because "the players need to know I'm on a long term contract."

I've sort of forgiven all of them.

Teddy however, deserves to be back up the list in light of his recent comments on Kane. That guy has zero loyalty to Spurs.

 

[rossdapep]

Yeah, it'll take some doing to knock Campbell off the top spot but Kane's sitting just below him at the moment.
I think it's because of the "one of our own" stuff.
I can understand him wanting to leave and I'd be OK with him going, I just hate the way he's gone about it.
City haven't even made a decent offer ffs but he's currently hiding away in another country and sulking like a bitch.
Sol downright lied, then joined our arch rivals for nothing. That's despicable but Kane is currently shitting on anyone involved with Spurs too.
The only redeeming factor is that we might (should) get some decent wedge for him.

Here's something to ponder.

If Kane's contract was running down and Arsenal were City in this instance. Due to his current behaviour and stance, I honestly could see him jumping to go there because he clearly wants trophies thay badly.

I would never have imagined he'd do what he's doing now. But it does make you wonder.

Do others think the same?

 

[NinjaTuna]

Webster ruling would run Campbell very close!

I've tried to Google what a webster ruling is, but can't really get my head around it. Can you put it into basic terms for me? (and probs others too, who aren't sure what it is) cheers!

 

[Cavehillspur]

Help what, free him from his evil captors Tottenham Hotspur, fuckin farcical.

 

[McFlash]

Here's something to ponder.

If Kane's contract was running down and Arsenal were City in this instance. Due to his current behaviour and stance, I honestly could see him jumping to go there because he clearly wants trophies thay badly.

I would never have imagined he'd do what he's doing now. But it does make you wonder.

Do others think the same?

Yeah, it's crossed my mind too.
Modders and Bale, while they pissed me off at the time, they were being flirted at by Real Madrid, the biggest club in the world. It was kind of a once in a lifetime opportunity for them.
Berbatov, again Utd were flying and he was probably too good for us at that time anyway. Plus we didn't have any real emotional link with him.

Kane is just making me more and more angry, the more I think about it.

 

[SpartanSpur]

I've tried to Google what a webster ruling is, but can't really get my head around it. Can you put it into basic terms for me? (and probs others too, who aren't sure what it is) cheers!

The jist of it is that the player can buy themselves out of their contract. I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than that (and that there's kind of an unspoken rule between clubs not to use it) but you never know with how the Kane's have been acting.

Supposedly the fee to buyout would be between £30-40m.

 

[NinjaTuna]

The jist of it is that the player can buy themselves out of their contract. I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than that (and that there's kind of an unspoken rule between clubs not to use it) but you never know with how the Kane's have been acting.

Supposedly the fee to buyout would be between £30-40m.

I could be well off on this, but didn't Neymar basically do this when he went to PSG?

 

[sim simma]

Teddy was 31 when he joined utd and in my opinion was entitled to his glory. The same goes for Bale, Modric and Berbatov who's move reflected his personality. Apart from his breakthrough season when we finished 5th we've only spent the last 2 seasons out of the top 4. He has had opportunities with this team that the before mentioned rarely had. I'll remember the semi final against Ajax, Crouchy"s goals Vs AC Milan & City and Bale"s hat trick against Inter long before I remember anything of note that Kane has done. He has coasted and rode a wave with us. He had a fantastic team around him but in my eyes he hasn't earned the right to jack us in halfway through a contract. He's entitled to fuck all. He's a fucking show pony. If he leaves now in this way he's behind Campbell in my view and will never be hall of fame in my book

 

[JamieSpursCommunityUser]

The jist of it is that the player can buy themselves out of their contract. I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than that (and that there's kind of an unspoken rule between clubs not to use it) but you never know with how the Kane's have been acting.

Supposedly the fee to buyout would be between £30-40m.

I believe the main reason clubs don't use The Webster ruling is the uncertainty of what the costs will be.

It can't be determined or even estimated before the deal, only on a case by case basis by CAS reviewing evidence months later.

In addition to the "buy out" of remaining wages, it factors in all compensation as if the contract had been performed normally. Including costs associated with replacing the player, and all damages, loss of potential earnings etc.

Factor in Commercial deals and Champions League qualification etc and this becomes a very uncertain.

It could just as easily be the same as what Spurs are asking for, only you haven't budgeted for it in FFP.

Hence it's too risky for clubs, probably even City.

There's a good article on it here.

Neymar And Barcelona Would Be Crazy To Trigger Early Termination Of PSG Contract

Last summer the return of Neymar to Barcelona was imminent....or so we were told for weeks on end.

www.forbes.com

I could be well off on this, but didn't Neymar basically do this when he went to PSG?

No that was a release clause, required by Spanish law to be in every player contract.

Until then thought to have been set too ludicrously high for anyone to pay it.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

I think we need to accept he's gone.

“Accept”? I am actively hoping he leaves at this point.

 

[rossdapep]

Not sure if someone has already said this but I wonder if he saw the fan's reactions towards Levy and him and Charlie thought that the fans would have taken their side on it and turned that anger towards Levy.

 

[soup]

I haven't got a clue how many trophies Maldini won, nor Pele, Messi, Maradona, Ronaldinho, Zidane, Cruyff etc. Sure, they probably won quite a few between them, but they're remembered for being great players, they're not remembered in numbers of titles or cups.

Players have it drummed into them nowadays that unless they play for one of the richest clubs then they have no ambition. The agenda is narrow minded and fucking boring.

Kane stood in the ground on the last game of the season, clapping the fans with tears in his eyes, as if he was leaving something that meant something to him. Crocodile tears after all. He doesn't give a shit.

If I was City, I'd be asking if we could have a discount due to the player we're buying being a bonafide ****.

 

[SpursSince1980]

It’s a pity how all of this is unfolding. Especially for Kane. He has permanently damaged his reputation with this boneheaded hold out. He has elevated himself above the club, his teammates and the fans who have loved him as ‘one of our own’. Now, he has alienated the owners, coaching staff, the players, and the fans will not forgive him for treating the club like dog shit. There is no coming back from this in a way that refurbishes his reputation. He has absolutely screwed himself and will never be trusted or admired for being a so called ’model pro’.

I was fine with him leaving. And I believed he’d go about it the right way. Show that he values and respects those that have all contributed to his success. Instead, he has behaved as though he’s been slumming it with us for the last five years. That he doesn’t owe his enablers a modicum of humility and gratitude. Instead, he has acted like an entitled brat. Which then makes you wonder if that ‘model pro’ character is merely a facade. His love of the club, a mirage. His good guy persona a mask to hide a deeply self centered ego.

I would have been bummed, but would have wished him well. But now, he has completely erased any regard I’ve held for him. This saga is a blight on his legacy, and frankly I hope City do come in with a viable bid, and he gets his wish. As bridges have been burnt down to the studs with this horseshit. Best now for him to go away, so that his bullshit doesn’t become an albatross distraction that negatively impacts our season. That’s not fair on those he is so desperate to leave behind.

Bye Harry. It was fun and unique… then it got weird and uncomfortable. Time to move on.

 

[DCSPUR64]

Excuse me - say what? Florida is the very hotspot of COVID Delta outbreak in the US, and there is no quarantine travelling from there to the UK?!? ??

Who’s in charge of the UK quarantine system - Charlie Kane?

Then have Harry from Florida into quarantine, I am flying from DC next week to watch us play City, no quarantine.

 

[Montalbano]

From The Bahamas to Florida. Is he chasing Joe Lewis?

 

[DenverSpur]

With everything else going on so positive at the club, if I was Daniel Levy I'd be considering the negative fall out all this could have if a sulking and frustrated Harry Kane returned to the dressing room. It's the last thing Nuno or incoming new players need and I would be very inclined to bite the bullet and let the lad go to City for £130m without him ever needing to set foot back in the Tottenham ground.

Maybe we could hold out for more (another £20m) but at what expense to the team and overall morale ?. Let Pep have him and tell Harry to send a taxi round to collect his things at the rear entrance. Take the hit and move on. Fabio will use the money in a way nobody else could and recoup the loss by getting us great deals on a couple of replacement strikers.

Trying to integrate an unhappy and want away Harry Kane is the last thing Nuno, Fabio or the club needs at this stage of developments. Keep things positive.
Just my thoughts on the matter

But isn’t that what he’s trying to get the club to do with his antics? Why give him and City what they want? Let him stew for the rest of the month and if by then City haven’t met our Valuation, which should be well in excess of 150M, he can start earning his way back into the 1st team. He wants to go to the WC and he wants goal scoring records so he’ll have no choice but to fall in line and perform.

 

[soflapaul]

This is really a defining moment for the club. How we handle Harry will be a huge statement on who we are. If sonny, dier et al are frustrated with him, then sending him to the reserves may not be a terrible idea. Financially, it may not be as great an idea as selling him for whatever we could get, but long term it's a statement about who the club thinks it is as a club. That may ultimately pay much larger dividends in the long run.

 

[OnTheShelf]

Belotti and Vlahovic

Notti Belotti

 

[AdamsMorgan]

I've tried to Google what a webster ruling is, but can't really get my head around it. Can you put it into basic terms for me? (and probs others too, who aren't sure what it is) cheers!

I am surprised to hear the Webster ruling mentioned as it was greatly modified by the subsequent Matuzalem ruling. Both rulings determine what will happen if a player terminates his contract unilaterally and without just cause. This basically means « a player decides he no longer wants to be bound by his contract but doesn’t have a good reason to have it terminated».

The important thing in both rulings to remember is that a player is at fault for breach of contract and the club he moved to is jointly and severally liable. The thing being decided in these casss is the amount of compensation due and by whom.


How much compensation is due under the Webster Ruling?

- The relevant law is Article 17 of Fifa’s transfer regulations. These state that the first 3 years of a contract signed before 28 years of age are protected. After that à players contract is unprotected. This means Kane’s contract is currently unprotected. The fact Kane’s contract has hit 3 years is possibly why the Webster case is being mentioned by some.
- In deciding how much compensation is due authorities can use any objective facts brought to them including whether the contract is protected or not.
-However in the Webster ruling it was decided the injured club cannot use the transfer value of the player as the basis for determining compensation. CAS reasoned that the value of the player in the transfer market is at least as much due to the efforts of the player as it is the work of the club. It is unfair to use the player’s efforts in a punitive way. CAS also pointed out that if a players transfer value decreased e.g. by being left on the bench, then the club might be liable to compensate the player. The protection therefore works both ways.
- if a club unilaterally terminates a players contract it has to pay the player the remaining wages owed under the contract. This idea makes intuitive sense to football fans. The same is true if a player wishes to buy their contract out. They must pay compensation to the club equivalent to the full amount of wages still owed under that contract. Importantly the new club is under strict liability to pay the same sum on top as compensation.
- However there is a catch…The criteria used in Webster are only relevant if the contract does not explicitly mention the amount of compensation due if the player terminated without just cause. We do not know whether Kane’s contract has a provision for such an eventuality but if this exists then all of this is irrelevant.

Matuzalem Ruling

- In Webster CAS rejected the claim that the injured club could ask for damages as they had not adequately shown that the player’s breach of contract had caused material harm.

The Matuzalem ruling modified this as it showed how such damages could be calculated. There are two key factors:
1) The value of lost services to the club.
2) The status and value of the player to the club.

These factors are designed to restore the injured party to the position they would have been in had the contract not been breached. This allows for additional compensation to be paid taken into account. More specifically:

a) The cost of acquiring replacements. The bar is quite high for the injured club as they must show the new signing plays in the same position AND that the new player was bought only as a result of the player breaching contract. This would be hard for Spurs to show if there were a public record of Nuno wanting to play 2 up front. I would not be confident on this point.

b) The value of the player’s services foregone, which can be calculated by adding the objective transfer value of the player plus total wages in the new contract of the player and dividing it by the years on the contract. As an example if Kane were valued at £150m and paid £15m/ year on a 5 year deal then that would be a total of £225m or £45m/year. With 3 years left on his contract that would give Spurs an unrealised value of £135m that could be used as a guide to the amount of compensation owed.

However how to determine the objective transfer value is unclear. If a third party made a bid then that could be an indicator.Note that if Man City have had a bid turned down for £100m then Kane’s value would be found to be greater than this. However from this must now be subtracted the wages left on the contract ie the compensation due in Webster. In Kane’s case this would be about £30m. This means Spurs should be guaranteed more than £70m. How much more depends on how much more than £100m Spurs could objectively argue he is worth plus the impact of points ‘a’ and ‘c’ if they apply

c) Any demonstrable commercial losses as a result of the player breaching contract e.g. penalties with sponsors.

- The effect of the Matuzalem ruling is to make the amount of compensation due uncertain. This has been good for contractual stability between players and clubs.

- Spurs would feel very confident arguing that the England captain, a key player in the dressing room, and top goal scorer and assister the previous ceiling was worth a lot of money to the club. If the move came late in the transfer window then CAS would probably see the difficulty in finding replacements for such an influential player a further exacerbating factor.

- However the ceiling is still not likely to get close to the amount Spurs would ideally ask for him on the transfer market. Nonetheless the reputational damage to both Kane and Manchester City would make such a move highly unlikely.

If that was too much just know that the Webster ruling will be completely irrelevant to the Kane fiasco.