[Football] Harry Kane

[TomandJerry]

Breaking news on Sky, according to their sources Kane will return to Tottingham training towards the end of the week. Make of that what you will but the saga rumbles on.

Kane informed Spurs before the end of last season that he wanted a move and he believes he has a gentleman’s agreement that allows him to go this summer. The Tottenham chairman, Daniel Levy, sees things differently and does not want to sell.

Sent from my EML-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[vagabond]

Will be interesting to see if this changes Kane’s reputation in this country.

As great a player as he is… I know a lot of us here have always felt he’s got quite a cynical, sly edge to his game (think of the very crafty clattering foul back into a fresh from injury Lallana) and his clever dives. He is no saint and not how he’s portrayed as an angelic England captain that’s for sure.

For the record I hope he gets his move to City though. The lad deserves to win something.

 

[BRIGHT ON Q]

 

[Springal]

Kane is a great goal scorer, but a bit over rated from being a truly great player. In all 3 finals he has played in, he has not turned up right? Great players elevate themselves in the big games - something Kane lacks.

Sure he will win stuff at Man City, but they already are

 

[Weststander]

I don’t like Mansour’s sports-washing club. But I reckon Kane will thrive there.

Far and away Spuds best player, they were usually awful without him, so they flogged him to death when carrying injuries, rushed him back from more severe injuries. Spuds and England paying the price in the latter part of seasons.

With Sterling and others, Kane will get rest and proper recovery time.

 

[Motogull]

Kane informed Spurs before the end of last season that he wanted a move and he believes he has a gentleman’s agreement that allows him to go this summer. The Tottenham chairman, Daniel Levy, sees things differently and does not want to sell.

Sent from my EML-L09 using Tapatalk

Sounds like a Dibley and Beaky situation to me.

 

[Icy Gull]

Sounds like a Dibley and Beaky situation to me.

Hope so!

 

[Doc Lynam]

Will be interesting to see if this changes Kane’s reputation in this country.

As great a player as he is… I know a lot of us here have always felt he’s got quite a cynical, sly edge to his game (think of the very crafty clattering foul back into a fresh from injury Lallana) and his clever dives. He is no saint and not how he’s portrayed as an angelic England captain that’s for sure.

For the record I hope he gets his move to City though. The lad deserves to win something.

Or the time he tried to milk Dunk!

 

[Greg Bobkin]

1. Kane is 3 years into a 6 year deal.
2. He is contractually obliged to turn up to training.
3. By not turning up you disrespect your coaches, your teammates and your club.
4. This is not the time to be selling Kane when only one of the few clubs that have the capability to buy him actually have the cash to do so now.

It's poor from Kane but also poor from Citeh. If you want the player then pay the price, don't make the bloke trash his legacy for the sake of a few mill.

This. Have City (or any other club) actually put in an offer for Kane? He might be getting ahead of himself anyway, thinking that Levy is refusing, but there is so much BS written around transfers, you'd never know the truth.

The other thing this behaviour does is to demonstrate what he could be like at other clubs if he doesn't get his own way*. He's got a job – and a contract – to complete. There is no use relying on 'gentlemen's agreements*, especially not with someone like Levy.

*If that's even what is happening here...

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

This. Have City (or any other club) actually put in an offer for Kane? He might be getting ahead of himself anyway, thinking that Levy is refusing, but there is so much BS written around transfers, you'd never know the truth.

The other thing this behaviour does is to demonstrate what he could be like at other clubs if he doesn't get his own way*. He's got a job – and a contract – to complete. There is no use relying on 'gentlemen's agreements*, especially not with someone like Levy.

*If that's even what is happening here...

I don't have a clue about this specific case, so can't comment. But I do have an insight into how agreements work in football. It is entirely possible that Kane agreed to extend his contract (in order to increase his value when he is sold by Spurs) on an understanding that he would be released this Summer (or even last potentially). It turns out that it doesn't suit Spurs to sell him now (possibly because the market is depressed - even at the top end) and they have decided to keep him and not honour the verbal agreement. After what may have been a great deal of discussion, the club are standing firm so Kane has had to take what he feels is appropriate action, and with limited options, he has returned to go back for pre-season. Yes, he's in breach of contract, but he might argue that Spurs have gone back on their agreement. We will never know.

The point I'm clumsily making is that what we see Kane doing now COULD be the final, visible result of a lot of previous discussion. It might not simply be petulence on his part. It's probably wrong to conclude that he is just being a dick.

He is however a diving snide of a player who therefore is going to be given less support and understanding than he otherwise might.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I don't have a clue about this specific case, so can't comment. But I do have an insight into how agreements work in football. It is entirely possible that Kane agreed to extend his contract (in order to increase his value when he is sold by Spurs) on an understanding that he would be released this Summer (or even last potentially). It turns out that it doesn't suit Spurs to sell him now (possibly because the market is depressed - even at the top end) and they have decided to keep him and not honour the verbal agreement. After what may have been a great deal of discussion, the club are standing firm so Kane has had to take what he feels is appropriate action, and with limited options, he has returned to go back for pre-season. Yes, he's in breach of contract, but he might argue that Spurs have gone back on their agreement. We will never know.

The point I'm clumsily making is that what we see Kane doing now COULD be the final, visible result of a lot of previous discussion. It might not simply be petulence on his part. It's probably wrong to conclude that he is just being a dick.

He is however a diving snide of a player who therefore is going to be given less support and understanding than he otherwise might.

I get what you're saying and appreciate the insight into how things work, but it seems a crazy way to run proceedings.

The bit on bold talks about two things: one is a legal binding document, agreed by all parties, the other is just a conversation that doesn't mean a thing, in reality. If that is what has happened, unless Kane has got any 'proof' that the agreement was 100% set in stone (and in that case, why wouldn't you stick that in an updated contract, or – as someone pointed out earlier on TalkShite – get a release clause put into your contract), then he's been naive, at best...

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm #TeamSpuds

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

I get what you're saying and appreciate the insight into how things work, but it seems a crazy way to run proceedings.

The bit on bold talks about two things: one is a legal binding document, agreed by all parties, the other is just a conversation that doesn't mean a thing, in reality. If that is what has happened, unless Kane has got any 'proof' that the agreement was 100% set in stone (and in that case, why wouldn't you stick that in an updated contract, or – as someone pointed out earlier on TalkShite – get a release clause put into your contract), then he's been naive, at best...

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm #TeamSpuds

I think verbal agreements can be just as binding as a written one - they're just harder to prove definitively. (Legal folks will correct me on this).

I know a case where a player was promised a three year contract extension at the end of his first season. He was offered that contract, but it had a one year break clause for the club. So in effect it was a one year contract - whilst still meeting the terms of the agreement. Player rejected the contract and the spin from the club was that he was just being greedy. This must happen again and again, which is why ironically the role of the agent grew - and in doing so unleashed that particular shit show of self-serving, trough snuffling clowns.

My conclusion is that you never know and never will. But to draw definitive conclusions based on only the outcomes you can see is almost always a mistake.

 

[vagabond]

I don't have a clue about this specific case, so can't comment. But I do have an insight into how agreements work in football. It is entirely possible that Kane agreed to extend his contract (in order to increase his value when he is sold by Spurs) on an understanding that he would be released this Summer (or even last potentially). It turns out that it doesn't suit Spurs to sell him now (possibly because the market is depressed - even at the top end) and they have decided to keep him and not honour the verbal agreement. After what may have been a great deal of discussion, the club are standing firm so Kane has had to take what he feels is appropriate action, and with limited options, he has returned to go back for pre-season. Yes, he's in breach of contract, but he might argue that Spurs have gone back on their agreement. We will never know.

The point I'm clumsily making is that what we see Kane doing now COULD be the final, visible result of a lot of previous discussion. It might not simply be petulence on his part. It's probably wrong to conclude that he is just being a dick.

He is however a diving snide of a player who therefore is going to be given less support and understanding than he otherwise might.

Elite players have had all the power for so long, maybe things will start to change and clubs will get a bit more weight. Players can’t have it both ways. They can’t sign a multi year contract with all the protection that brings and no doubt a whacking great signing on fee that is collectively an obscene financial package, and then complain that the club aren’t letting them go.

Saw it with Messi as well last season complaining they wouldn’t let him go to City.

You can’t have it both ways. If you don’t want to commit for 4 years, don’t. Commit to a year extension. If the club don’t want that then you can move on. I’m starting to side more with Spurs in this situation, although I suspect old Harry’s most likely been given bad advice from agents who were all too happy to skim of the top of his multi million contract extension rather than think of his career.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Elite players have had all the power for so long, maybe things will start to change and clubs will get a bit more weight. Players can’t have it both ways. They can’t sign a multi year contract with all the protection that brings and no doubt a whacking great signing on fee that is collectively an obscene financial package, and then complain that the club aren’t letting them go.

Saw it with Messi as well last season complaining they wouldn’t let him go to City.

You can’t have it both ways. If you don’t want to commit for 4 years, don’t. Commit to a year extension. If the club don’t want that then you can move on. I’m starting to side more with Spurs in this situation, although I suspect old Harry’s most likely been given bad advice from agents who were all too happy to skim of the top of his multi million contract extension rather than think of his career.

I just saying we don't really know what's gone on, so we don;t really know who's in the right. Suffice to say, Kane is a bit of a prick, so feels like he deserves a bit of aggro and the more chaos at Spurs the better!!

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

I think verbal agreements can be just as binding as a written one - they're just harder to prove definitively. (Legal folks will correct me on this).

I know a case where a player was promised a three year contract extension at the end of his first season. He was offered that contract, but it had a one year break clause for the club. So in effect it was a one year contract - whilst still meeting the terms of the agreement. Player rejected the contract and the spin from the club was that he was just being greedy. This must happen again and again, which is why ironically the role of the agent grew - and in doing so unleashed that particular shit show of self-serving, trough snuffling clowns.

My conclusion is that you never know and never will. But to draw definitive conclusions based on only the outcomes you can see is almost always a mistake.

Quote from Gary Neville

 

[B-right-on]

Bottom line is that this is all conjecture and suppositions based on heresay. But media journos jump on it as they have got to excite interest and create controversy. That's their (shitty) job.

 

[Mellotron]

Bullshit statement from Kane today.

 

[NooBHA]

I think verbal agreements can be just as binding as a written one - they're just harder to prove definitively. (Legal folks will correct me on this).

Verbal Contracts are just as binding as written contracts.

However a Verbal Contract cannot superseded a Written Contact. That is to say. That once the 4 corners of a written contract have been established and signed. Then any amendments to that contract have to be in writing also.

 

[NooBHA]

View attachment 139239
Quote from Gary Neville

Harry Kane is in the Bahamas on holiday. Spurs will have known this. Who is actually saying that he is not turning up for training. The Press are probably looking for a Narrative for a story that doesn't exist

 

[Mellotron]

Harry Kane is in the Bahamas on holiday. Spurs will have known this. Who is actually saying that he is not turning up for training. The Press are probably looking for a Narrative for a story that doesn't exist

The club fined him?