Harry Kane

Daniel Levy is never going to agree to a written buyout clause. It's a non-starter. People keep saying they should have put it in there like it's something that (if you even convince you club to give you one) wouldn't completely change the terms offered to you.

So here's a choice for you. You've just recovered from several big surgeries on your leg. You're 25 years old. Spurs want to offer you a new deal, but they absolutely will not entertain a buy out clause. Pochettino is manager and the club you love are going from strength to strength.

Option 1. Don't sign a new deal, earn £21m over the next 4 years as you run your contract down. Maybe you'll get out with 6 months left like Eriksen, when you'll be 28.

Option 2. Sign the 2 year extension, Guarantee £78m over the next 6 years and assume you'll get bought without a buyout clause like Modric, like Bale, like 90% of players. Otherwise you'll get out at 30. Still plenty of time to pick up half a dozen trophies at the right club.


If anyone on here says they'd turn down £57m on the condition you might be stuck for 2 more years at a club below your level (a club you love anyway), they are liars.

It's a fair point but how much money do people need? He must have ready been a multi millionaire and still on a good wedge on his four year deal. Surgery or not he was and is their main asset. It would be no release clause no deal extension from me regardless of the money. The club would then have three years before they'd start to panic as it entered the last year.

I guess it boils down to your values and what's more important in life. As horrific and sad as it was I used to think that everytime I saw some poor contractor threatened with beheading in the middle East. They knew the risks but the financial rewards were massive. Still not worth the gamble for me.
 
No way KDB or Foden leave the best league in the world to play with a bunch of farmers
Exactly a release clause doesn't mean they "have" to leave it's just the minimum price that a team has to pay. As clubs can be going places one minute and down in the dumps the next due to literally anything, more usually poor off-field business decisions. Holding players to contracts they signed when circumstances were different and promises made is completely unfair when they change so much. I personally think they are a good thing and if the club is any good players won't want to leave.

As far as earning less because of them, I get that but the alternative is getting stuck somewhere you don't want to be and like any job how would you feel if you weren't allowed to leave?
 
Everyone screaming for a release clause should thank themselves lucky that its not that popular in the UK or the likes of PSG may have come in at some point and paid for KDB or Foden years ago.
It wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. Neither would have gone. If either ever wanted or does want to leave City will sell them, with or without a release clause. That's how football works. You can't keep a player who wants to leave just for the hell of it.
 
Everyone on this thread talking about press briefings but there's so many pages i cannot find any links to any actual articles. What's been briefed and to who? Can anyone help please?
i wouldn't bother, head back out and try for that giant perch mate, all piss and wind in here :)
 
Everyone screaming for a release clause should thank themselves lucky that its not that popular in the UK or the likes of PSG may have come in at some point and paid for KDB or Foden years ago.

Popular or not they could have still insisted on one. They haven't because they know we won't hold them here against their will, there's no point. Once the heart is out of the door the head will soon follow.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.