Jadon Sancho

[DeadleyLedley]

No doubt Kilpatrick has got a line from someone at the club but that doesn't mean that person knows exactly what's going on. I just can't see the club backing out at this stage. He's one of the brightest prospects for his age group. We've obviously invested time in persuading him not to go to our arch rivals. Why would we just hand him to them? Do you think they'd be particularly bothered about a sell-on clause?

When we get negative news about transfers at least most of it makes sense. This doesn't.

 

[Deleted member 27995]

Not really sure what City have to gain out of any of this, and I would have thought doesn't do much for their portfolio when it comes to youth prospects in the future.

 

[thinktank]

Think this will still happen.

What's making you confident?

 

[nicdic]

What's making you confident?

If the player is keen, he's not gonna play at City and we're keen then I think something will work out.

I'm not convinced that DKPs article is all that much to go on either.

 

[Luka Van der Bale]

No doubt Kilpatrick has got a line from someone at the club but that doesn't mean that person knows exactly what's going on. I just can't see the club backing out at this stage. He's one of the brightest prospects for his age group. We've obviously invested time in persuading him not to go to our arch rivals. Why would we just hand him to them? Do you think they'd be particularly bothered about a sell-on clause?

When we get negative news about transfers at least most of it makes sense. This doesn't.

From all the news we're being given, and the laws people have found, it is very hard to see why this wouldn't happen. He wants it, we want it, and the law seems to give City very little say in the matter. Very confusing.

 

[spursfan77]

No doubt Kilpatrick has got a line from someone at the club but that doesn't mean that person knows exactly what's going on. I just can't see the club backing out at this stage. He's one of the brightest prospects for his age group. We've obviously invested time in persuading him not to go to our arch rivals. Why would we just hand him to them? Do you think they'd be particularly bothered about a sell-on clause?

When we get negative news about transfers at least most of it makes sense. This doesn't.

I'm sure something about a sell on clause was mentioned yesterday and that could be a reason as to why it might go to tribunal.

 

[JamieSpursCommunityUser]

What are you on about?

Lets say we offered £4m instead of £1.3m + 5% sell on.

City counter with £20m + 20% sell on and whatever else, to make a statement.

We offer £1.3m + 5%

City threaten to report us like we did to Chelsea for Kirby, and maybe not release his registration for a year.

We leak that we're prepared to walk away, leaving City with a player who refuses to sign or train with them, and a PR problem with the potential to damage their public image and reputation in academy circles.

Eventually the narrative would be "City spitefully freeze out young England talent."

Something City's owners would care far more about than Chelsea.

Liverpool didn't get a full transfer ban for tapping up.

True, but any ban on signing youth players would be an even greater issue for us, considering our business model.

 

[philll]

If only we had some kind of leverage we could use. I don't know, like still having a player Man City wanted to buy this summer...

Yeah unfortunately goodwill after you've done something for another team doesn't seem to exist in this day and age. Unless you're Harry Redknapp and you buy Louis Saha from Everton and you make a "gentleman's agreement" with Moyes to not play him that season when the 2 teams meet and then they beat us, that is.

 

[Lilbaz]

I wonder if it will change if we offer them more money. I suspect that's what it's about.

Somehow don't think city could give two shits about money.

 

[PhezTHFC]

Just out of curiosity because he isn't on a professional contract can this be done outside the Deadline?

 

[Hercules]

Just out of curiosity because he isn't on a professional contract can this be done outside the Deadline?

No! As not free-agent, and owned by club.

 

[PhezTHFC]

No! As not free-agent, and owned by club.

Cheers mate so we need to sort this out asap obviously

 

[nightgoat]

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

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ol-banned-signing-academy-players-fined-stoke

 

[rossdapep]

Could all be posturing by the club to make City think they will get nothing. Perhaps they want 20% sell on clause or something completely unrealistic and as the player "is really keen to join us" then that leaves them in limbo.

If we were all to be a little bit honest, we couldn't have expected this one to go through as easily as it had appeared. We are taking City's biggest academy asset from them, a player who they deemed good enough to offer a very generous salary and contract. They are hardly gunna let it go without at least some hardship.

 

[Lily White Lady]

Well I'm now thoroughly confused. Player wants to come. Fee is agreed. Not even on a pro contract with Citeh. What on earth is the sticking point? All sounds very fishy...

 

[coy-spurs1882]

This transfer window is getting more and more annoying...can't see any factor holding or potentially ruining the transfer...

 

[GetSpurredOn]

Have to agree, think this may be just a bit of posturing. City have a player that is refusing to go back. Whilst they may want to make a stance that players cannot just walk away, equally they probably would not want to be seen to be holding a player against his wishes, it'd surely put any potential young players off signing there in future.
Sancho has openly questioned his future chances there, plus lots of talk of wanting to return to London (home). City cannot ideally force him to stay, they will just try to get the best deal for them, as such, Spurs perhaps release a story saying they'll hold off until next summer and take him without City's say so. Let's be clear, that's what the journo is saying, Spurs will not go in for him this summer. City will relent I think.

 

[SpartanSpur]

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.

City try and tempt Onomah away with money, chooses to stay for footballing reasons.

City offer Sancho record trainee wages, wants to leave for footballing reasons.

Must be very confusing and frustrating for City, usually they just keep throwing money at a situation until they get what they want.

 

[glospur]

Something has obviously changed on the 'prospect' front from last week. ITK from Gards saying this could be completed by Wednesday just gone, Galahad saying a prospect will sign on the same Wednesday and a bleat from the Goat suggesting that we'd agree a 28m fee for Sessegnon. Disappointing but hopefully both are delays rather a change in the possibility of the deal.

Haha Graham Roberts made himself look a bit silly as well with his comments.

 

[lukadownthelane]

Is that really likely? Is he (or I suppose his agent) already that much of a prick at 17? I have a bit more faith in people but you might be right

Oh I'm sure it would be agent led!