- Aug 17, 2015
- 324
- 1,585
You can't 'tap someone up' if they don't have a pro contract. He's free to speak to anyone he wants. Any suggestion of Man City threatening us with a complaint is total twaddle
Mostly the same story from yesterday but backing the City not letting him leave point. Would love Herc or someone to come in and give an update if there is one to give.Kilpatrick has posted an actual article now, basically saying the reason behind his tweet was that City are unwilling to let him go from his scholarship.
I.e. they won't accept a bid and we won't accept a tribunal which will include a sell-on fee? Seems a bit narrow-minded, even for Levy. Surely giving away a percentage of something is better than not having it at all?Kilpatrick has posted an actual article now, basically saying the reason behind his tweet was that City are unwilling to let him go from his scholarship.
Kilpatrick has posted an actual article now, basically saying the reason behind his tweet was that City are unwilling to let him go from his scholarship.
Liverpool got a ban on youth signings for this very reason, and we threatened to report Chelsea over their approach for Kirby which led to them having to pull out. Not sure why you're speaking with such authority on this when you're incorrect.You can't 'tap someone up' if they don't have a pro contract. He's free to speak to anyone he wants. Any suggestion of Man City threatening us with a complaint is total twaddle
From @Hercules in itk threadMostly the same story from yesterday but backing the City not letting him leave point. Would love Herc or someone to come in and give an update if there is one to give.
Makes no sense, as scholarships are not like pro-contracts. We approach FA, and player is interviewed. If all above board, we are allowed to compensate. It is news o me that. Citeh in this case can stop him playing for us and hold him to his SC. that does not wash. The kid is a 17 year old child crying out loud. There has to be something more to this. I know they wanted a ridiculously sell on clause. Soon find out.Kilpatrick has posted an actual article now, basically saying the reason behind his tweet was that City are unwilling to let him go from his scholarship.
Not if we've gone through the FA to talk to player first.Liverpool got a ban on youth signings for this very reason, and we threatened to report Chelsea over their approach for Kirby which led to them having to pull out. Not sure why you're speaking with such authority on this when you're incorrect.
If you find out more let us know. Seems a wonky one and makes me wonder if it is similar to the Berahino situation where someone at the top is trying to win candy points for themselves and scupper the move and possibly ruin a kid's career.Makes no sense, as scholarships are not Luke pro-contracts. We approach FA, and player is interviewed. If all above board, we are allowed to compensate. It is need to me that. Other in this case can stop him playing for us and hold him to his SC. that does not wash. The kid is a 17 year old child crying out loud. There has to be something more to this. I know they wanted a ridiculously sell in clause. Soon find out.
But there's no evidence that we've done anything improper and speculation otherwise is just that.Liverpool got a ban on youth signings for this very reason, and we threatened to report Chelsea over their approach for Kirby which led to them having to pull out. Not sure why you're speaking with such authority on this when you're incorrect.
Kilpatrick has posted an actual article now, basically saying the reason behind his tweet was that City are unwilling to let him go from his scholarship.