The mancityfans.net football forum

nottsblue wrote:Exactly Z. He was happy enough to sign a long term contract which presumably remunerated him very well without having the sense to incorporate release clauses

He has made his bed. Hope there is plenty of hay in it

zuricity wrote:^^^^

You're wrong John , he is a contractor on a limited term contract. At the end of the contract he is free to go where he pleases and Spuds must allow the transfer of his player id to the new club. He must register for a new club.

The only question is what kind of termination of contract they have with each other , 30 days notice , instant termination etc.

As a Yorkshire mate of mine would say 'arry shot his wad .

john68 wrote:

zuricity wrote:^^^^

You're wrong John , he is a contractor on a limited term contract. At the end of the contract he is free to go where he pleases and Spuds must allow the transfer of his player id to the new club. He must register for a new club.

The only question is what kind of termination of contract they have with each other , 30 days notice , instant termination etc.

As a Yorkshire mate of mine would say 'arry shot his wad .

Are you certain of his legal status as a contractor or is he an employee?
Also, as Kane and his legal team assert, that he had a verbal or gentleman's agreement that he would be allowed to leave, (considering Spurs would be in control of the amount of compensation they could demand), Spurs refusal to allow that process to even commence, could be seen as holding him against his will.

I am not certain, but believe that Kane signed a new contract not that long ago. This is often done as a financial strategy where a club ensures the value of a player is kept to a maximum when they release the player. Often done whenboth parties have agreed (verbally or otherwise) that a player can leave if the compensation value is met.

It is not just the Kane issue, I think the whole transfer system needs to be looked at. Where players are viwed as players rather than human assets of profit and loss.

zuricity wrote:^^^ There has been several income tax cases about monies being paid for image rights etc, wasn't Rooney involved in one ( offshore payments) ? If he is an employee on a limited contract , he would still have normal enforceable termination of contract rights would he not ?

john68 wrote:

zuricity wrote:^^^ There has been several income tax cases about monies being paid for image rights etc, wasn't Rooney involved in one ( offshore payments) ? If he is an employee on a limited contract , he would still have normal enforceable termination of contract rights would he not ?

I genuinely don't know the answer to the contractor/employee questionMate. But an employee outside football would have would have tax problems if earnings beyond his usual income were not declared. I don't see that as an issue determining the contractor/employee question.
Pre Thatcher most employees in the UK used to have termination of employment regulations laid down in their employment contracts. Thatcher changed much of the then employment rights etc and subsequently E.U. laws were added and to further muddier the legislation.
With the advent of zero hours contracts, I truly haven't got a clueof the current situation.

I do think that contracts in football are largely irrelevent and are largely ignored by the owners and players. to suit their own agendas. We see players sold on when no longer needed and others kept against their will.

My opinion is that if Kane had made it known he wanted to leave and Spurs agreed he could under certain circumstances, then they refuse to stick to that agreement, they are at fault.

Mase wrote:Still not welcome. Don’t go back in for him!!!! The guy is a prick that goes to injury other players, timewastes, would cost £100+ million and not be worth it.

john68 wrote:My view of Kane hasn't changed because of this game.
I acknowledged that he is a top goal scorer but felt that he failed to work hard enough when not on the ball.
Yesterday was one of the few times he has proved me wrong.

I don't blame him for his performance, that is just sour grapes and I feel just as sick about his role yesterday...but, he is paid by Spurs to do a job and we failed to stop him.
Win some, lose some.

Nick wrote:

john68 wrote:My view of Kane hasn't changed because of this game.
I acknowledged that he is a top goal scorer but felt that he failed to work hard enough when not on the ball.
Yesterday was one of the few times he has proved me wrong.

I don't blame him for his performance, that is just sour grapes and I feel just as sick about his role yesterday...but, he is paid by Spurs to do a job and we failed to stop him.
Win some, lose some.

But hes been wank in his other games

Bluemoon4610 wrote:

Nick wrote:

john68 wrote:My view of Kane hasn't changed because of this game.
I acknowledged that he is a top goal scorer but felt that he failed to work hard enough when not on the ball.
Yesterday was one of the few times he has proved me wrong.

I don't blame him for his performance, that is just sour grapes and I feel just as sick about his role yesterday...but, he is paid by Spurs to do a job and we failed to stop him.
Win some, lose some.

But hes been wank in his other games

He wasn't playing the team that failed to match Levy's (over-inflated) valuation of him. Point to prove, and all that...

Nick wrote:

john68 wrote:My view of Kane hasn't changed because of this game.
I acknowledged that he is a top goal scorer but felt that he failed to work hard enough when not on the ball.
Yesterday was one of the few times he has proved me wrong.

I don't blame him for his performance, that is just sour grapes and I feel just as sick about his role yesterday...but, he is paid by Spurs to do a job and we failed to stop him.
Win some, lose some.

But hes been wank in his other games