-
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...
Ex-Spurs Player Harry Kane
- Thread starter Moulman14
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
We don’t sort out the deals on here . Try Spurs Community
Deleted member 13260
Guest
Sadly and realistically very true.
Kane won’t do that Webster shit. He literally would be in danger every time he went to London. It would be worst than Campbell
It already is.
This is disruptive, snide and underhand.
It is utterly shocking at every level and worse is that this guy is the England captain.
Make no mistake, this is disgraceful.
This was reportedly in Dier's instagram story.
Even when everyone is in unison against Kane, you manage to say something stupid as a result of your anti Kane agenda.
It won't shape your destiny in any way. You'll just throw money at something else instead.
Didn’t Rooney have a history of handing in transfer requests and then signing massive contracts? (Didn’t go on strike, tho, IIRC)
This was reportedly in Dier's instagram story.
Which one is Harry Kane?
Say what you want about Dier, he’s Spurs.
This was reportedly in Dier's instagram story.
No agenda. It's worse.
That’s got to be The Sun stirring things up. Maybe it’s theoretically possible, but if City hasn’t actually made a bid, why would Kane pay that kind of money to hope they do?
I don’t mean to be rude, but are you actually a spurs fan?
Harry Kane can buy himself out of Spurs contract with Webster Ruling loophole
TANGLED WEB
HARRY KANE can force a move to Manchester City by BUYING himself out of his contract at Tottenham thanks to the 'Webster Ruling'.
The England captain, 28, informed Spurs of his desire to leave the club to finally win some silverware as early as May.
Since then, Man City have been strongly linked with a £150million swoop.
Tottenham supremo Daniel Levy has claimed he doesn't want to sell to a Premier League rival - but no European giants are able to afford him.
That means Kane's scenario is simple: Stay at Tottenham against his will or hope Levy has a change of heart.
Kane has failed to report back to Spurs training after extending his post-Euro 2020 holiday from the Bahamas to Florida - enraging club chiefs.
Now the Tottenham striker could take matters into his own hands thanks to a little-known Fifa loophole, Article 17 - known as the 'Webster Ruling'.
It's a complicated scenario, so let's start from the beginning...
In a bid to bring more balance between 'contractual stability' and 'freedom of movement' Fifa implemented Article 17 a decade later, on July 1, 2005.
Article 17 allows players who signed their contract before the age of 28 to buy themselves out of their deal - but only three or more years after signing the deal.
Players who signed after turning 28 need only serve two years before enforcing Article 17.
That means he HAS served over three years of his contract - set to expire in the summer of 2024.
Technically, Kane can therefore look to enforce Article 17 and buy himself out of his Tottenham contract.
Tottenham would likely cite tortious interference and inducement - essentially what American sports call 'tampering'.
The other issue is that Kane's contract is believed to still have around £40million on it.
That means Kane would need to pay AT LEAST that figure.
It could be more, as Spurs would potentially claim their losses would be significantly higher with their talisman no longer at the club.
But if he does, he'll likely be sued for it, kicking off an almighty legal battle.
It's possible, but highly improbable.
TANGLED WEB
Harry Kane can buy himself out of Tottenham contract in transfer loophole using Webster Ruling to seal Man City move
HARRY KANE can force a move to Manchester City by BUYING himself out of his contract at Tottenham thanks to the 'Webster Ruling'.
The England captain, 28, informed Spurs of his desire to leave the club to finally win some silverware as early as May.
Since then, Man City have been strongly linked with a £150million swoop.
Tottenham supremo Daniel Levy has claimed he doesn't want to sell to a Premier League rival - but no European giants are able to afford him.
That means Kane's scenario is simple: Stay at Tottenham against his will or hope Levy has a change of heart.
Kane has failed to report back to Spurs training after extending his post-Euro 2020 holiday from the Bahamas to Florida - enraging club chiefs.
Now the Tottenham striker could take matters into his own hands thanks to a little-known Fifa loophole, Article 17 - known as the 'Webster Ruling'.
It's a complicated scenario, so let's start from the beginning...
WHAT IS THE WEBSTER RULING?
In 1995, the well-known Bosman free transfer came into force - which allowed players to walk away from their club for nothing at the end of their contract.In a bid to bring more balance between 'contractual stability' and 'freedom of movement' Fifa implemented Article 17 a decade later, on July 1, 2005.
Article 17 allows players who signed their contract before the age of 28 to buy themselves out of their deal - but only three or more years after signing the deal.
Players who signed after turning 28 need only serve two years before enforcing Article 17.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR KANE?
Kane - still only 28 years old - signed a six-year contract at Tottenham in June 2018, then aged 24.That means he HAS served over three years of his contract - set to expire in the summer of 2024.
Technically, Kane can therefore look to enforce Article 17 and buy himself out of his Tottenham contract.
SO, WILL KANE ENFORCE ARTICLE 17?
It looks very unlikely.Tottenham would likely cite tortious interference and inducement - essentially what American sports call 'tampering'.
The other issue is that Kane's contract is believed to still have around £40million on it.
That means Kane would need to pay AT LEAST that figure.
It could be more, as Spurs would potentially claim their losses would be significantly higher with their talisman no longer at the club.
PLEASE, SIMPLIFY THINGS!
In a nutshell, Kane CAN enforce Article 17.But if he does, he'll likely be sued for it, kicking off an almighty legal battle.
It's possible, but highly improbable.
I think you are reading it wrong.
Kane would in that scenario buy his way out of his contract and move to City on a "free" transfer. Where he is most likely compensated by City.
Spurs would then sue the fuck out both parties, claiming interference and inducement. He wouldn't do something to make City make a bid for him.