Spurs didn't need him.Not involved today against City
He's going to end up at City isn't he! And that's a complete joke. FFP is pointless.
That isn't my point or issue though bud. My issue is that PSG and City basically do what they want despite not truly following the FFP rules. It's a joke.It's not like FFP has tied our hands at any point though is it?
That isn't my point or issue though bud. My issue is that PSG and City basically do what they want despite not truly following the FFP rules. It's a joke.
He did not receive good advice.Basically, Kane played this one poorly. He thought he'd get the move through to City but in the end I think they've decided he was too expensive given who they could probably get next year.
Basically, Kane played this one poorly. He thought he'd get the move through to City but in the end I think they've decided he was too expensive given who they could probably get next year.
From Spurs' POV, who would they spend that money on that would be as good as Kane? Which strikers are available that would be worth losing your best* player over? They know they can still get the same €150m next year because that offer was seen as lowball this year. That's only 128.52m pounds. If Lukaku is 100m then Kane should be 200m (whatever the numbers are, Kane is twice the player).They bid €150m I think was about right and Spurs refused to let him go.
If he wanted out he shouldn't have signed a new deal not that long ago with a Gentleman's agreement. Has he not met Levy?They bid €150m I think was about right and Spurs refused to let him go.
If he wanted out he shouldn't have signed a new deal not that long ago with a Gentleman's agreement. Has he not met Levy?
If he wanted out he shouldn't have signed a new deal not that long ago with a Gentleman's agreement. Has he not met Levy?
You forget these deals are also done to protect the value of the club and help them. He could have not signed that new deal 3 years ago and walked off for £50m but like Ronaldo he wanted Spurs to get a good fee for him when it came to leaving. £130m isn't a bad fee for any player.
Yup, the longer deals are in the interests of the club to protect sell on value plus amortizing transfer fees over the length of the contract, or asset value in Kane’s case helps their dodgy accounting balance the books. Top players would be better served with shorter contracts, allowing them the ability to get out of necessary.You forget these deals are also done to protect the value of the club and help them. He could have not signed that new deal 3 years ago and walked off for £50m but like Ronaldo he wanted Spurs to get a good fee for him when it came to leaving. £130m isn't a bad fee for any player.
Ronaldo was signing new 6 year deals every 12 months. He gets the reward of the payrise and United know that they'll get top dollar when it's time to leave. These deals aren't just for the player and meaning you'll definitely stay the time they're two protect both parties but then there has to be an agreement that if one wants to leave then a fair price is agreed.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.