Kane v Bale in a skins game. Loser has to play for Spurs.
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Kane v Bale in a skins game. Loser has to play for Spurs.
Evening Standard reported it, as have Sky Sports.Talksport just saying he's been fined by the club. Not sure if that's been verified anywhere else though.
What do you know nuffing. only what sky sports tell you so all thats going on is speculation. What if his wife or daughter is sick, what if he ask levy for an extra day to sort some shit out, what if his flight was delayed and made home late last night. PURE SPECULATION and we are acting like gossip girls spreading speculation.
Correct a player can’t refuse to play if selected but the suggestion was that basic wouldn’t be picked and made to see out the contractIf the club make that decision, yes. If the player is selected but refuses to perform they cannot then just walk out.
Talksport just saying he's been fined by the club. Not sure if that's been verified anywhere else though.
Everyone hates Raiola. Liking someone is neither here nor there; he's detested. But you still have to work with him. And it's not like Pep would actually have to do any of the talking.Pep hates Raiola and Haaland isn't nearly as good a fit for Pep as Kane would be. So if they are letting Pep have a big say in the squad it makes sense that they would not have much interest in Haaland.
Plus, even without Pep I am not sure City is a team that would want or need to jump through all the hoops that Raiola would demand.
England, golf, City, Spurs IN THAT ORDER
But it matters that our player wants out. Harry wants out so this deal needs to happen or we have an unhappy player, etc. It always matters when there is a limited market irrespective of the reasons for that limitation.If Kane only wants City it's irrelevant how many clubs bid for him. This isn't an auction, they want Kane, Spurs don't want to sell - they need to pay the asking price or look elsewhere. They're not out bidding themselves but deciding if they want to pay the asking price.
How do you name this as the only one...As for Mod he's the only example of a prized asset with years left on his contract, who wanted out and was wanted by a wealthy club who we made stay. The only one. Worked out pretty well and he went abroad too for a big fee so not really the exception.
...only to follow it up with 2 more from our club. And not to mention the many others from around Europe.Sold Berbs went backwards, same with Bale. Are we going anywhere without him? Again it's about what we value the player at first and foremost. One minute Levy is accused of penny pinching on signings, next minute he should selling Kane for less than he's worth. Not for me . 50 or 60 million more is massive and the club should be holding out for it.
But you were incorrect with your explanation. Levy knew multiple years prior to CE's exit that he would not be renewing. He tried to force a renewing down his throat. Everyone lost...which should have been a lesson learned but our Daniel is resistant to such edification.Eriksen was handled badly but it was a different situation as I've already explained.
In your opinion. But how much did keeping him do for our fortunes? I would have figured you would have reassessed your opinion on this matter considering the intervening evidence. People said the same thing when I suggested it in the previous years...now here we are. We've already lost 2 managers and most of our players are shit and we don't recruit as is...and that's with keeping him. My goodness what dystopic future do you see if we move him on? Shit, we might even end up in the Europa Conference League playing qualifying round in bulgaria or something. Wait...didn't something like this happen last year?You would've sold Kane maybe a year or two ago but the damage that would've been done to the club would've been massive in my opinion. Would've damaged our reputation and probably led to our managers walking out not to mention players. Affected recruitment too and destroyed morale amongst staff and fans. Especially as the player wasn't wanting a move. It's no way to run a club in my opinion.
Probably not but a good footie discussion never hurt anyone.
Ginola played at striker if you remember. We virtually had a Mickey mouse midfield.I was there too. 1-1 at half time and we were in the game. Astonishing second half. That’s a very much nadir moment.
Everyone hates Raiola. Liking someone is neither here nor there; he's detested. But you still have to work with him. And it's not like Pep would actually have to do any of the talking.
Sure, there are the silly clauses he requests, but I can't imagine any of the teams he is now being pitched to will agree to adding a reduced buyout clause, to ensure that Raiola gets another slice of the pie in a few years time. Chelsea certainly will not accept it.
Haaland will suit anyone. He's certainly a better investment than a 28 year old with suspicious ankles.
Lack of ambition. Happy to hopefully scrape top 4 next season.
Yes, i think we need to find a way to get him out of the club now. For as much money as possible.I do not want to keep an unhappy Kane I saw what that looked like last season and he is a bitch. We have just fumigated the Mourinho smell of sulphur out the club. We are selling Alderweireld Sissoko potentially Winks lets go full fresh start. This is something to embrace lads not to be feared. Paratici needs to close deals we can still bring in four class players.That put us further ahead than an unhappy kane.
Correct a player can’t refuse to play if selected but the suggestion was that basic wouldn’t be picked and made to see out the contract