And yep I've got no idea what Kane is playing at, seems foolish to not turn up to training, why burn your bridges with the club you supposedly support? Surely it would be better to leave on good terms, or stay on good terms.
The imaginatively titled Premier League 21/22 Thread
- Thread starter lejackal
- Start date
Agreed on Kane.
I suspect he is pissed off at Spurs not being in contention for trophies and more so at Levy for not honouring his supposed 'gentleman's agreement' The first bit I can understand. The second bit is purely on Kane though. 1) He should have got it in writing from Levy. Levy is a shrewd businessman, he works on contracts not vague promises. Kane also needs some way to prove this agreement existed, otherwise people could go round claiming anything was a gentleman's agreement. 2) If there was an agreement, I would suspect it was conditional on Spurs getting what they/Levy consider fair value. That is Levy's cop out. He does NOT sell players cheaply. Kane should know this. He must have know Levy would value him at absolute top dollar and reject anything below that overly inflated price. Yet he still took him at his word (apparently).
Whatever way you dress that up, Kane was stupid.
He signed the 57yr contract 2 years ago and has 3 or 4 years left. Levy has all the power. Kane can sulk all he wants. Levy does not have to sell, and I doubt he will for anything under £120m.
Kane is burning his bridges with no realistic hope of a move.
I suspect he is pissed off at Spurs not being in contention for trophies and more so at Levy for not honouring his supposed 'gentleman's agreement' The first bit I can understand. The second bit is purely on Kane though. 1) He should have got it in writing from Levy. Levy is a shrewd businessman, he works on contracts not vague promises. Kane also needs some way to prove this agreement existed, otherwise people could go round claiming anything was a gentleman's agreement. 2) If there was an agreement, I would suspect it was conditional on Spurs getting what they/Levy consider fair value. That is Levy's cop out. He does NOT sell players cheaply. Kane should know this. He must have know Levy would value him at absolute top dollar and reject anything below that overly inflated price. Yet he still took him at his word (apparently).
Whatever way you dress that up, Kane was stupid.
He signed the 57yr contract 2 years ago and has 3 or 4 years left. Levy has all the power. Kane can sulk all he wants. Levy does not have to sell, and I doubt he will for anything under £120m.
Kane is burning his bridges with no realistic hope of a move.
lejackal
Grand Master
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2015
- Messages
- 9,421
- Reaction score
- 1,997
Yep, as Koscielny discovered a couple of years ago verbal agreements aren't worth squat. Obviously him and Kane are miles apart value wise but they are/were both long term committed professionals, both club captains and both got shafted on a gentlemen's agreement. Yes, LK got his move but what a **** show it was, especially for someone who had given so much to the club (however much he earned)
Villa have signed Ings who was apparently on Spurs' list. I know what's going to happen, Kane will be sold one day before the season starts and when all of the good available players have already been sold. At least Villa have some sense making preparations for Grealish going.
The Ings one is a strange move for me. I know his contract was up and he wasn't for signing a new one, so i get why Saints sold him. £25m with £5m in add-ons is probably a fairly solid price for an underrated striker like him. Albeit one with a dodgy injury history and who is 28/29 (a bit like Harry Kane in that respect). BUT is moving from Saints to Villa a step up? It's sideways, at best. Surely he could have got a better move than Villa?
As you say Edd, if Kane goes, he would surely have been one of the first names Spuds talked about as a potential replacement. Given his contract status he would have been, relatively, cheap as well, and that suits Levy down to the ground.
Now he's stuck a fairly stodgy Villa side who won't do any more than mid-table obscurity in a good year.
On the other hands Saints have big problems, his goals kept them out of trouble last year. With him gone, they need a new goal scorer or a couple of decent players to strengthen that squad or they could be looking at a long auld slog of a season.
As you say Edd, if Kane goes, he would surely have been one of the first names Spuds talked about as a potential replacement. Given his contract status he would have been, relatively, cheap as well, and that suits Levy down to the ground.
Now he's stuck a fairly stodgy Villa side who won't do any more than mid-table obscurity in a good year.
On the other hands Saints have big problems, his goals kept them out of trouble last year. With him gone, they need a new goal scorer or a couple of decent players to strengthen that squad or they could be looking at a long auld slog of a season.
lejackal
Grand Master
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2015
- Messages
- 9,421
- Reaction score
- 1,997
As good as he has been he has bled that club dry
Yeah sounds like Barcelona are ruined financially, who would have thought paying one player half a million euros a week would bankrupt you!? 
Grealish to City is deal done, so does that mean they can't afford/don't want Kane any more? I must say I don't think Grealish is worth 2/3 of Kane, but will be interesting to see how he gets on there.
Grealish to City is deal done, so does that mean they can't afford/don't want Kane any more? I must say I don't think Grealish is worth 2/3 of Kane, but will be interesting to see how he gets on there.
lejackal
Grand Master
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2015
- Messages
- 9,421
- Reaction score
- 1,997
I mean do you think Kane is worth north of 100mil? As Weasel has said before he's more or less physically ****** (ankles). One or two seasons and he's not going to be half the player he has been.
As for Grealish I'm surprised City have done a hundred on him, not because of his footballing ability but because of his off field behaviour. Better recently but still (allegedly) drink driving
As for Grealish I'm surprised City have done a hundred on him, not because of his footballing ability but because of his off field behaviour. Better recently but still (allegedly) drink driving
I still do not see a £100m player in Grealish. I don't even see a player worth half that. He is no more than a "good" PL player who played in a club that built it's entire team round him.
I also don't see what problem he solves for City. They need a striker and a LB, he is neither.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2014
- Messages
- 9,242
- Reaction score
- 770
I'm not surprised that City have payed that for Grealish, FFP doesn't really exist does it! They can spend what they want and fiddle the books. I do think Grealish is a top player, most fouled player in the PL last two seasons and second only to Bruno Fernandes for chances created in open play last season in the PL. Thats playing for Villa, imagine what he will do in the City team. I can see City swapping a player and some money for Kane, that said he's back training, Spurs may have won that battle.
Grealish is a great buy for any team, the number of free kicks in dangerous areas he wins, the work rate, passing and vision will go down a storm at City
Kane, jury is out for me, if he gets in a team with outstanding players around him, he will shine, just think in the end he will stay put, unless Levy does a swap and can for Messi ha ha you never know, Trump got the presidency, Bafoon Boris got the prime minister spot …who knows!
Kane, jury is out for me, if he gets in a team with outstanding players around him, he will shine, just think in the end he will stay put, unless Levy does a swap and can for Messi ha ha you never know, Trump got the presidency, Bafoon Boris got the prime minister spot …who knows!
Grealish may be the most fouled player but how many of them where cos he dives like a little girl!? He's worse than Ashley Young FFS.
Also, I'm not sure City will want him going to ground every time he gets the ball. It's not very often they are under the cosh and need to buy a free. They tend to dominate and pass teams to death. They'll want him to stay on his feet and pass.
Signing him over a striker just seems very strange to me. Strengthen your strongest area and ignore your weakest. Logic in there somewhere.
I do agree FFP is a joke/farce, I have never seen it as anything but the big boys trying to protect themselves while selling it as looking out for everyone else, and that City cheat. There is an on going court case involing them and the PL. If they lose there could be some serious questions to be asked. If they lose, a judge has basically confirmed they broke the rules and cheated. Should there be penalties for them? Financial fines seem pointless when the Club has a bottomless pit of money. I'm not sure I want to see any club retrospectively docked points (and to see my club awarded a title years later would be the definition of hollow) but teams who break financial rules in the lower leagues get docked points, and, assuming they lose, City will have cheated, so……..
It would send one hell of a message, and require the FA to grow a set. So watch City get fined £2m if they lose.
Also, I'm not sure City will want him going to ground every time he gets the ball. It's not very often they are under the cosh and need to buy a free. They tend to dominate and pass teams to death. They'll want him to stay on his feet and pass.
Signing him over a striker just seems very strange to me. Strengthen your strongest area and ignore your weakest. Logic in there somewhere.
I do agree FFP is a joke/farce, I have never seen it as anything but the big boys trying to protect themselves while selling it as looking out for everyone else, and that City cheat. There is an on going court case involing them and the PL. If they lose there could be some serious questions to be asked. If they lose, a judge has basically confirmed they broke the rules and cheated. Should there be penalties for them? Financial fines seem pointless when the Club has a bottomless pit of money. I'm not sure I want to see any club retrospectively docked points (and to see my club awarded a title years later would be the definition of hollow) but teams who break financial rules in the lower leagues get docked points, and, assuming they lose, City will have cheated, so……..
It would send one hell of a message, and require the FA to grow a set. So watch City get fined £2m if they lose.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2014
- Messages
- 9,242
- Reaction score
- 770
I don't think City are finished in the transfer market yet, they will get a striker, may not be Kane but they will get one. They still have two teams that can win the league IMO, well one that can win the league and one that can finish in the top 4. Pep probably will want him to stay on his feet more, but City also love to break up the play and slow things down when its good for them, tactical fouls, buying free kicks and keeping the ball while not actually doing much with it.
lejackal
Grand Master
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2015
- Messages
- 9,421
- Reaction score
- 1,997
The way it's worded has changed in punditry and reporting.
It used to be:
"the striker has been fouled/kicked/brought down"
now it's:
"the striker has drawn a foul"
or
"won a free kick/penalty"
The narrative has changed from the defending player being at fault to the attacking player has been good for getting a set piece awarded
Ahhh ok, with you now.
I assume that cos we see so much diving now*. And it's not new Ronalod, Stevie G, Fat Frank, all fond of going to ground easily. Not quite as easily as some players now but we seem dangerously close to "there's contact that must be a penalty/foul."
It is a contact sport. Contact is allowed. The clue is in the name FFS.
* Possibly also cos the auld GBH tackles of the early 90's are outlawed, so defenders have had to learn to be cuter (or to tackle). Watch any PL game from the 90's and I will be amazed if you get past 10 minutes before someone puts in a tackle that would be a straight red now. And all that happens is the game continues and no one bats an eyelid.
I assume that cos we see so much diving now*. And it's not new Ronalod, Stevie G, Fat Frank, all fond of going to ground easily. Not quite as easily as some players now but we seem dangerously close to "there's contact that must be a penalty/foul."
It is a contact sport. Contact is allowed. The clue is in the name FFS.
* Possibly also cos the auld GBH tackles of the early 90's are outlawed, so defenders have had to learn to be cuter (or to tackle). Watch any PL game from the 90's and I will be amazed if you get past 10 minutes before someone puts in a tackle that would be a straight red now. And all that happens is the game continues and no one bats an eyelid.
lejackal
Grand Master
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2015
- Messages
- 9,421
- Reaction score
- 1,997
Oh I know, Pires may once or twice have fallen on the well trimmed grass of Highbury before
I was watching Arsenal from 03-04 last night and if the same match was played today there'd be at least 6 or 7 yellows dishes out
I watched the original Liverpool Newcastle 4-3 from 96/97 ish season. That game now would have to be abandoned cos there weren't enough players left on the pitch. There were dozens of, what would now be, red card tackles.
lejackal
Grand Master
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2015
- Messages
- 9,421
- Reaction score
- 1,997
There was definitely less rolling around, that's for sure. You only really stayed down if you'd been cut in half by Keane or Vieira and that was only because the afters were likely to be worse than the challenge
That said Chelsea had a few feisty buggers, even spuds had a bit of a nuisance in midfield
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2014
- Messages
- 9,242
- Reaction score
- 770
There was they just played on. lol
You joke. Stuart Pearce did try and run off a broken leg when he was at WH. He was jogging up and down the touch line as the Physio waved "no" in front of him. From memory he came back on, but quickly realised it's hard to run on a broken leg, and harder still to kick a ball with one.
97m for Lukaku. I remember him as an average Chelsea player and pretty good Everton player, but 97m?! I know that seems to be the going rate for any half decent footballer this window but wow.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2014
- Messages
- 9,242
- Reaction score
- 770
Yeah think I remember that, he would pretty much carry on playing if you chopped his head off.
Looks like City are lining up £150 million bid for Kane, surely they will have to move a player out if that happens. Lukaku will get 25 - 30 goals in the league for Chelsea, they are crying out for a striker. Again what's £97 million to them, it could be double that and they would pay it if they were aloud and needed to. I've said it before, City and Chelsea have pretty much ruined football for me, they have torn up 150 years of history in the last 15 years by spending, spending and spending. Usually spending well, but still its still bollocks.
Last edited:
