It's not as black and white
-
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...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
I'm not convinced there was any gentleman's agreement. It's an easy thing to claim when you don't have anything on paper and there is no way to categorically prove that there wasn't a verbal agreement. The moral question mark is posed and the player's club is shamed into caving.
In this day and age, I find it hard to believe that any part of a contract would be left up to verbal agreement. If it's not on paper, it was never negotiated in the first place.
Gentleman's agreements happen all the time in football, at every level. Just because you find it hard to believe certainly doesn't mean they don't happen.
But no gentleman's agreement says any player could leave at any time without a market based bid being received.
So if Mancity don;t make a market based bid, there's nothiong to talk about
Yeah, nobody but those two know exactly what was said. Levy would say one thing and Kane another, no doubt. But if last season was seen as an opportunity for us to convince Kane his future should be with us, then it was nothing other than a massive failure.
Usually I wouldnt buy it either. But its levy and others have had similar experiences with this before.
LOL Troll
He wont be getting paid for the time he doesnt come to work. So everything is okay?
I repeat NOBODY is going to say 'you can move at at anything other than a market price'
Kane has been in football long enough to know that.
There are 12 votes in support. I could have guessed 7/8 of them without looking.
:nunolol:
:nunolol:
Here's my take.
The market price of any player is determined by the player's relative skill to other players in his position, his relative marketability, etc. Essentially, his ability to be profited from. The player's contribution to winning via his skill is one (not the only) factor.
Equally influential is the length of the player's contract. These are intertwined because a player's contract essentially represents a club's view of the player and all the above metrics over a period of time. The club guarantees money, even at risk of injury, in order to secure the asset over a period of time.
So the transfer fee paid is both a factor of market value (player's value at market, broadly speaking) and a factor of the player's importance to the club in question.
A good example to show this is the following. Were Kane be at city now instead of spurs, and some club wanted to buy him, his value would be less to City than it is to spurs right now. That's because he's more "replaceable" at city than spurs, because city can more easily attract similar talent.
Now, the relative worth of a player to the club he's under contract with is influenced by the length of the contract. The less remaining, the less value the club can extract from the player. So the less other clubs have to pay.
A "gentleman's agreement" complicates this picture. A contract at law can and often is more than the written document. There are clauses to guard against this, and they're usually enforced, but not always.
A gentleman's agreement with Kane essentially cuts his contract "short". It's not as clear as "you have 3 years remaining", or conversely as clear as "city can sign him outright as he's a free agent".
So Kane's selling price, if Levy is to hold up the alleged gentlemen's agreement, is somewhere between Kane's value with 3 years remaining, and Kane's value with 0 years remaining.
This might explain why City is pushing for less than the 150-200 spurs fans expect. 150-200 is arguably a fair market value of Kane with 3 years remaining, especially given Covid deflating prices a bit from the Coutinho madness. But Kane has a gentleman's agreement. So the FMV is less.
You can't really quantify it. But I can see why Kane would be upset if the asking price of Levy was 150-200. But if Levy is willing to negotiate, say between 100-150, and City just isn't budging, then Levy isn't being unfair. Neither is Kane. City is.
The market price of any player is determined by the player's relative skill to other players in his position, his relative marketability, etc. Essentially, his ability to be profited from. The player's contribution to winning via his skill is one (not the only) factor.
Equally influential is the length of the player's contract. These are intertwined because a player's contract essentially represents a club's view of the player and all the above metrics over a period of time. The club guarantees money, even at risk of injury, in order to secure the asset over a period of time.
So the transfer fee paid is both a factor of market value (player's value at market, broadly speaking) and a factor of the player's importance to the club in question.
A good example to show this is the following. Were Kane be at city now instead of spurs, and some club wanted to buy him, his value would be less to City than it is to spurs right now. That's because he's more "replaceable" at city than spurs, because city can more easily attract similar talent.
Now, the relative worth of a player to the club he's under contract with is influenced by the length of the contract. The less remaining, the less value the club can extract from the player. So the less other clubs have to pay.
A "gentleman's agreement" complicates this picture. A contract at law can and often is more than the written document. There are clauses to guard against this, and they're usually enforced, but not always.
A gentleman's agreement with Kane essentially cuts his contract "short". It's not as clear as "you have 3 years remaining", or conversely as clear as "city can sign him outright as he's a free agent".
So Kane's selling price, if Levy is to hold up the alleged gentlemen's agreement, is somewhere between Kane's value with 3 years remaining, and Kane's value with 0 years remaining.
This might explain why City is pushing for less than the 150-200 spurs fans expect. 150-200 is arguably a fair market value of Kane with 3 years remaining, especially given Covid deflating prices a bit from the Coutinho madness. But Kane has a gentleman's agreement. So the FMV is less.
You can't really quantify it. But I can see why Kane would be upset if the asking price of Levy was 150-200. But if Levy is willing to negotiate, say between 100-150, and City just isn't budging, then Levy isn't being unfair. Neither is Kane. City is.
If we want 150 million for him then that's pricing him out of a move. What benefit do we get by doing that? So we keep an unhappy player around. If we play him, questions will be asked continously about whether he's giving it his all. Also will the other players still want a player around that's the top earner at the club knowing he wants to be somewhere else? I think the answer to that is a big no. If we keep him but don't play him, then his market value significantly decreases by next summer.
Basically there's no good to come from keeping him now. Too much damage has already been done. Now Levy has to find the right balance between getting as much as we possibly can for him while also not pricing him out of a move.
If you own a house, or if not your dearest posession, please accept this £1 for it.
You don't believe in market pricing so you should accept
This simply isn't true.......
.......And your only real basis for saying this is "what if he sulks though".
Think 100m is ok? .......Ask yourself this:
1 x Harry Kane or 2 x Ben Whites.
We can't just use Ben White as some sort of stick for what Kane is or isn't worth. He's one signing. Woolwich clearly over-paid for him, which is the usual schtick for an English player.
I've not said we should take 100 million and run. But I am saying is that no club is going to pay this 150 million that keeps getting bounded about. So asking that is pricing him out of a move and we gain little to nothing from doing that, in my opinion.
I know not everyone here listens to it, but some of you really ought to check out the latest TFC podcast.....
Not cos I'd expect it to change any minds about any particular topic, but just to get a feel for how far off you are from the spirit and attitude behind that brought the forum that we all frequent into being:
........Then maybe ask yourselves if anyone would tune in to listen to an hour of the repetitive, bitter misery that some of you peddle here on a daily basis.
Not cos I'd expect it to change any minds about any particular topic, but just to get a feel for how far off you are from the spirit and attitude behind that brought the forum that we all frequent into being:
........Then maybe ask yourselves if anyone would tune in to listen to an hour of the repetitive, bitter misery that some of you peddle here on a daily basis.
Fuck off with your kisses mate
Ok,
1.45 x Ndombele.
1.45 x Lacazette
1 x Ozil + 4 years wages
1 x Sanchez + Gio + Bergwijn
1 x Zaha + wages
(You must remember though; loaded or not we don't have the pick to every player tin the world, so saying 60m for Haaland next years clause + Aguero at 2011 price is null. )
You have already said you'd accept it; albeit begrudgingly. (See Harry Kane thread)
...And regardless, that's as much as has been offered; albeit unofficially & albeit rumoured.
Well I guess no-one's in the market for the worlds best CF this summer then..... Or maybe they can try their luck prizing Lewandowski or Lukaku out of their clubs instead and having a spend up with presumed difference in fees.