WOTspur
Well-Known Member
- Aug 24, 2017
- 265
- 1,323
You are correct.
Harry Kane
- Thread starter RichSpur58
- Start date
You are correct.
ProfCalculus
Well-Known Member
- Aug 3, 2021
- 269
- 1,049
I agree but this is the problem. It wouldn’t be genuine. It would be scurrying around trying to inveigle himself back into the good feeling of fans because he’s not as desirable as he thought he was. In short, it would be, as it always is with him nowadays, all about him. i definitely didn’t see quite how abysmal he would become in his behaviour but last season and around the euros I sensed a change in him, like when an extremely thick person has some success and starts to buy into their hype. It started for me when he continually backed the worst manager I’ve seen in 40 years supporting our club (who genuinely interpreted the success of counter pressing to mean that giving the opponent the ball is the best attacking tactic), purely due to that oleaginous, Machiavellian sycophant having told him he will make him a superstar. ?
it would be like your wife pissing on all your rarest pogs and running off to the rich bloke next door in her underwear, then crawling back saying she’d realised she really likes you best, when he won’t answer the door.
erm yh he says wants to go home OR spain....
dSSAbr
Well-Known Member
- Jul 11, 2020
- 186
- 502
Kane doesn't deserve a new contract. It was a stupid move on his part, he is/was a leader in the locker room and showed the worst way possible that he doesn't want to be with those guys. Sell or keep him with his current contract and fine him. No good gesture from me
spids
Well-Known Member
- Jul 19, 2015
- 6,647
- 27,841
Yes. Applicable to all players, and the only age relevant bit is in regards to the player's age when the contract was signed.
28+ and the player can buy out after two years of the contract.
<28 and they can only buyout after three years.
Any compensation due to the club would, per Article 17, be based primarily on the amount of the player's salary still outstanding. However, as said previously, the club could demand compensation for lost revenue and costs etc. and there has never been a test case for an elite player.
spids
Well-Known Member
- Jul 19, 2015
- 6,647
- 27,841
Shows Kane should be sold way more than 100m.
I have no way of knowing what this graph is trying to communicate without additional explanatory text.
wiggo24
Well-Known Member
- Jan 5, 2013
- 5,095
- 36,843
Shows Kane should be sold way more than 100m.
Also reinforces my belief that Aurier is leagues above Doherty and shouldn't be the one getting sold, but I digress.
Re Kane, Pep quotes obviously a complete disgrace. Managers should never talk about other club's players like that, and phrasing it like we're the ones being unwilling to negotiate rather than them being the ones refusing to pay market value is fucking pathetic. It's honestly astounding that City/the media seem to think we're holding Kane hostage or something on 250k a week.
Narrative is all over the shop - can't be against the Super league but desperate for City to sign Grealish/Kane/Messi etc
BosSpurs08
Well-Known Member
- Aug 8, 2019
- 111
- 343
In terms of playing style, Laporte would complement Romero extremely well. Left footed, strong distribution (not quite Toby strong, but great at those raking passes Jan would often do). I would worry how motivated any City cast-offs would be, so we’d need to be sure his mentality would be up for it.
Bigger concerns would be the message it would send to he squad if we rewarded Kane by making this deal on City’s terms (I’d want £120m cash at least), and the opportunity cost it would represent (esp. if we feel strongly about our ability to land Kounde/Lacroix).
I like how Pep has said we are not willing to negotiate in the press conference but pretty sure we did, they offered x million we said no and therefore ball is in their court to come back with a new offer which we may or may not say no to. So essentially it is really Many City who are not willing to negotiate.
Wonder if Charlie can get his head round that one
Wonder if Charlie can get his head round that one
TC18
Lurker
- Jan 27, 2011
- 566
- 1,756
I have to disagree, City want these players gone with no buyers for them. We know they have another £100m in their back pocket, If they are that desperate for Kane I’d be starting off with both them players plus £120m, with a view to accepting £100m. I still think that is letting them off incredibly lightly.
bizarre that you repeat this. As I explained, it is not “based primarily” on remaining salary. The primary consideration is “replacement cost”. And quite what you mean by “lost revenue” is anyone’s guess.
Romario
Well-Known Member
- Aug 3, 2019
- 1,427
- 10,416
Following this whole debacle does it clearly indicate that the introduction of a contractual "release clause" should perhaps be considered as mandatory for all player contracts irrespective of the actual terms negotiated by individual clubs/players ?. That way any prospective buyer would know exactly how to activate such a provision and avoid the sort of unwanted pantomime antics we are now witnessing ??
Hoopspur
You have insufficient privileges to reply here!
- Jun 28, 2012
- 6,335
- 9,703
Impassioned and articulate piece, but to say they have no absolute history is not correct. They have had a smattering of success over the years. Maybe not quite so much as us up until the money led turnaround but some success none the less. More recently a plastic club for sure but they have many fans that remember their previous times - both bad but also some good.
haslemereyid
captain caveman
- Jun 6, 2010
- 1,488
- 2,062
Who is in charge of the Kane situation - Fab or DL?
Romario
Well-Known Member
- Aug 3, 2019
- 1,427
- 10,416
Fabio 100%
GMI
G.
- Dec 13, 2006
- 3,130
- 12,253
Charlie, and he’s doing a marvellous job
But seriously I’m sure Daniel mentioned that dealing with the Harry situation was one of the first things in Fabio’s ‘in tray’ went he started. I think he said it in his video interview during the managerial search.
haslemereyid
captain caveman
- Jun 6, 2010
- 1,488
- 2,062
then perhaps we should expect a more pragmatic outcome than if DL was running the show..
spids
Well-Known Member
- Jul 19, 2015
- 6,647
- 27,841
Not sure why you seem to think you are the authority on this when you are effectively saying exactly the same thing as I am. I can quote from a legal analysis of Article 17 of FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and civil responsibility of Players if it helps.
As I have said, the primary / principal starting point for compensation is the players salary, as that is a transparent formula. The club can then counter with a claim for compensation for lost revenue, replacement costs, sporting prize money losses, lost sponsorship etc.
As I repeatedly have said, this is incredibly complex and has not been tested with an elite player. I am not suggesting for one minute that Kane could leave for 3 x annual salary (if that is what you are getting at). I am simply saying that player salary is the primary starting point for compensation from Kane's perspective. Levy would then counter requesting compensation all sorts of lost revenue, replacement costs, sporting losses etc. and as I said before it could take years and could cost Kane tens if not hundred of millions.
And this from Article 17 itself:
Last edited:
Aphex
Well-Known Member
- Jan 30, 2021
- 6,287
- 33,052
Nah, with Kane it is Levy calling the shots. This was confirmed by an ITK recently. That said no doubt Paratici is providing his opinion and expertise.
Paratici controls everything but with Kane, it's the exception.
