BillyShears
Well-Known Member
I keep telling my wife that too but she’s not having it!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Harry Kane
- Thread starter Super Joey Hart
- Start date
I keep telling my wife that too but she’s not having it!
If that was the case, why did we do the Grealish deal first?Which is why I expect this will eventually get done & we'll probably pay over the odds to get him. It sounds like the club are trying to sell Bernardo to fund this deal so until his future is sorted the deal will stall.
Grealish had his release clause and we could do that deal at any time.
To me a striker was a far more important deal for us to complete first.
If after completing the Kane deal and we had the funds, sign Grealish.
I think the Grealish clause had a time limit. It had to be triggered by a certain date, if it wasn’t then I reckon Villa would be pulling a Levy on us.If that was the case, why did we do the Grealish deal first?
Grealish had his release clause and we could do that deal at any time.
To me a striker was a far more important deal for us to complete first.
If after completing the Kane deal and we had the funds, sign Grealish.
Kakhaber The Great
Well-Known Member
Video of you playing guitar, with Harry Kane sat next to you singing backing vocals, or it didn't happen.I will be learning "We Didn't Start The Fire" on guitar today in honour of this thread and the things I read this morning before Ric decided to nuke all the evidence.
It is amazing how so many people who are on my ignore list seemingly spend so much time writing about me on Bluemoon. I guess I leave an impression even with those people I go out of my way to avoid ;)
Sorry but I don't believe that, the clause would have lasted the length of his contract.I think the Grealish clause had a time limit. It had to be triggered by a certain date, if it wasn’t then I reckon Villa would be pulling a Levy on us.
If it did have a time limit, fair enough, I was not aware of that.
And if Kane and his reps had the same foresight , we would not be in this crazy situation.
I think the Grealish clause had a time limit. It had to be triggered by a certain date, if it wasn’t then I reckon Villa would be pulling a Levy on us.
Yeah it expired a few days after we signed him - from what Sam Lee said, Villa tried stalling accepting City's bid to after the date, as City ostensibly shouldn't have been aware of the clause. Grealish and his camp mentioned legal action if they didn't accept the bid, due to the release clause.
It would’ve been easier to sign Haaland or Messi. It is quite funny how much Pep wants Harry.
Wasn't it Pep who once noted the importance of having a strong national core to a team? Or perhaps someone else of our clubs higher ups. Not saying it's *the* reason, just something factoring into the thinking.
Gaz (FMwkdsoul)
Well-Known Member
I think they assumed the injuries to Kev/Foden was worse and Bernardo would find a buyer faster. Silva/Kev/Foden all missing the start of the season.If that was the case, why did we do the Grealish deal first?
Grealish had his release clause and we could do that deal at any time.
To me a striker was a far more important deal for us to complete first.
If after completing the Kane deal and we had the funds, sign Grealish.
100m to cover injuries for a few weeks?I think they assumed the injuries to Kev/Foden was worse and Bernardo would find a buyer faster. Silva/Kev/Foden all missing the start of the season.
Agree with this.. typical drivel example is that Kane holidayed in the Bahamas and then the States……unless I’m mistaken uk residents are not allowed to visit the USA….just shows how much research the media really doNo - outside of a select few, I’d imagine no-one knows which way this one’s going to end.
But that’s never stopped our friends in the media printing endless drivel about it before!