NON -Greed in the game

Garbo

UTC Legend
I think that Kane's stand off with Spurs shows what a mess the game has gotten into..

Players are happy to sign improved contracts with better pay etc..then try and challenge those very same contracts by effectively going on strike!

I understand that players want the whole cake and to eat it all themselves...

At some point in time the game has to evolve in a better form??

yes I know that Kane is probably doing it to win trophies and not the money...but still what is a contract worth?
 
Agree, but there is no way in the short term the game will evolve in a better form. With the money being thrown at the EPL, and with their ongoing attempts to corrall it and keep more within the "top teams" it is likely to get worse before it gets better.

Having said that, if there was a "gentleman's agreement", then he has every right to hold out for a move

Having said that, though, he's a bloody idiot if he didn't get the "gentleman's agreement" in writing, especially with the Spurs chairman being involved.....
 
Actually, I am not convinced that the move to City, will be good for him (except financially) or City.

Pep's approach relies on speed in the area, which I think Kane lacks. Yes he is good at picking up pieces but the reason they have played much of the last two seasons with a faux centre forward is enhance their speed of reaction. If they buy him I cannot see them winning the league this season, which will upset some in my family.

:utc:
 
Spurs have had plenty from Harry Kane and should allow him to leave but as clubs are businesses they also have to ensure that they get premium rates for him to satisfy shareholders etc and have money to re-invest in the team...

It works the same for all players at every club...if they really want to leave then it makes sense to move them on ASAP
 
If Kane is moving to win trophies and not for the money then there is an easy solution.

He agrees to play for Man City for three years for free, and City pay Spurs the £100 million they’ve offered plus the £50 million in wages they’ll save.

Result: Spurs are quids in, City have spent no more than they set out to do, and sporting Harry Kane gets to lift a trophy, which is all he ever wanted out of the game.
 
Would a player be offered a better deal if he signs for 6 years rather than, say, 3? If so I hope (but doubt) that the contract should have a pay back scheme if player or club default on agreement before it ends.
 
Without knowing the ins and outs of agreements/talks with Kane and the club, not easy to judge.

But on the outside looking in, Kane’s stance isn’t doing him any favours I would have thought with the fans of Spurs and neutrals.
 
Would a player be offered a better deal if he signs for 6 years rather than, say, 3? If so I hope (but doubt) that the contract should have a pay back scheme if player or club default on agreement before it ends.

I think they do something like this in Spain (other than the duration). It's actually weighted in the player's favour though so that every player has the legal right to "buy out" the remainder of the contract to become a free agent. This is always paid by the purchasing club and is effectively a release clause equal to the players due wages.
 
I think they do something like this in Spain (other than the duration). It's actually weighted in the player's favour though so that every player has the legal right to "buy out" the remainder of the contract to become a free agent. This is always paid by the purchasing club and is effectively a release clause equal to the players due wages.
Really? Surely the club has to agree the selling price. Otherwise a player on 100k a week with 3 years left on their contract could leave for 15m?
 
Stand back and look at the dire consequences of player /agent greed. Because that is what it is. Not a market rate, just a massive human failing crippling so many teams and hobbling the rest. Why can't the overly endowed rich boy owners just build a space rocket to amuse themselves.....oh wait....
 
This whole scenario came about in the USA when billionaire owners paid their players breadline wages whilst they sat there raking in the profits, the players said, hold on a minute, who are the public paying to see, us, or the owners, agents were born to get their respective charges the best deal and now quite frankly it's got completely out of hand, there has to be a happy medium sought but unfortunately there never will be I'm afraid, as greed rules.
 
While we might have missed going to grounds for the last year , we did survive without it so maybe a nationwide boycott of the top two tiers for 4 weeks, instead going to non league might make people wake up and realise they can't just pay people whatever silly money!! Even one week with the threat of it continuing could send ripples.

For me all players should take a permanent 25% drop in salary and receive in return a prorata share of the first £xm of profit made by their club, X based on their total club salary and prorata including non playing non director staff.
 
SSN

DO GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENTS EXIST?

Peterborough owner Darragh MacAnthony told Sky Sports:

"Gentleman's agreements do exist in football but they're not worth anything. Like with everything else in life, if it's not on an official document then there's no guarantee.

"I've been in that situation before where I've had an agreement with players - Ivan Toney being one. I sat with him and his father the year before I sold him. I forget who was in for him - it was either Barnsley or Luton - and he'd just started to do well for us in League One.

"I said to him and his father 'now is not the time to go'. I said to him he'd do better financially if he stayed for another year, won the Golden Boot and I said then we wouldn't make it difficult. We wanted what was best for us and for him.

"The following summer, we went and did our business because that was my agreement with the player. It's world's apart, but Harry Kane has had advice on taking on Daniel Levy.

"The question I have is what was he doing signing the six-year contract in the first place?"
 
Really? Surely the club has to agree the selling price. Otherwise a player on 100k a week with 3 years left on their contract could leave for 15m?

Apparently it's something to do with an individuals right to buy themselves out of a contract maybe they can agree a higher release fee? I read Ronaldo was on a Billion quid or something stupid.

Edit: Being schooled by the Sun :slap:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/6970567/release-clause-la-liga-spain-arsenal-partey/
 
Last edited:

;