👨🏼‍💼Daniel Levy - Chairman | Page 21 | Vital Football

👨🏼‍💼Daniel Levy - Chairman

Barnsleyspur said:
I don't even think this is the heart of the matter.

I believe Levy promised kane he could leave if x conditions were met. The truth is an agreement to leave needs a value agreed and it seems to be the point that Charlie dipshit didn't iron out.

I don't think Levy has failed to adhere to the agreement (and you know I'd criticise him if I felt he had). I just don't think the conditions were met.

Hopefully this is a learning point for Charlie and his massive ego.

I would rather kane have left and we let Paratici rebuild but Levy is right to pull any plug at this point as we'd be held hostage to unreasonable demands for any half decent striker.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.

An informal 'gentleman's agreement' is totally meaningless without conditions being agreed.

If the conditions were agreed (between the club and Kane's camp) then City didn't meet those conditions.

And if conditions weren't agreed then the 'gentleman's agreement' was open to interpretation. And clearly City, Team Kane and Spurs had different interpretations of what that meant.

What's also odd is that City and Spurs had apparently been discussing this move behind the scenes for the past year. What on earth were they talking about to end up so far apart?
 
Spursex said:
There is one aspect of this that lays at the heart of the dispute between player and club; the eponymous 'Levy's promise'.

Under pressure, last season and besieged by Jose's antics (I pray for the day when the reasons behind his sacking become clear), I'm almost 100% certain that the 'promise' was made (unless Kane's camp is simply lying - and I don't believe they are - they've been suckered by it), it almost doesn't matter what the promise details were, but it does strike at the heart of Levy's management character.

Personally, whenever I've had a high performer point a gun at my head, I've refused to comply with their demands; do it once and it will happen again and again, once you lose your leadership and integrity, it's like virginity, you can never get it back.

I've heard and read much about Kane's camp stupidity, I've even laughed at them for their naivety and Charlie's stupidity, but Levy really is the culprit that started all this.

Under pressure, Levy appears to believe that saying anything that will get the immediate issue resolved is acceptable.

It isn't.

Kane virtually switched off towards the end of last season knowing that in his mind he was soon to be off - almost certainly that wouldn't have happened if Levy had stood tall and stayed firm and reminded him that he had 4 years left on his deal and that it was the club who would consider what the way forward would be.

Instead, we've had weeks and weeks of disruption, yes Charlie has been exactly that, a complete Charlie who with no experience of building and crafting a deal or protecting his client's rep, has been found out to be what he is, an amateur, with absolutely no cards to play.

Levy has brought in Paraticci, he now needs to step away from the footballing side of the business completely and let him get on with it and all we can do is hope he has more of a backbone when it comes to confrontation than Levy does.

Making silly knee-jerk promises leads to disaster; I am told that Kane's camp are all angry and won't forget in a hurry, Harry for not getting his 'promised' move, Charlie for being made to look a real Charlie.

No one comes out of this clean, not just Harry.
Click to expand...
If there was a 'gentleman's agreement' what was the purpose of the Neville interview? In the interview Kane talks about having a discussion at the end of the season to discuss his future. But at that point, if what Kane says is true (that there was a gentleman's agreement in place), why the need for the discussion about his future? His future lay elsewhere and had already been agreed.
 
Spursex said:
There is one aspect of this that lays at the heart of the dispute between player and club; the eponymous 'Levy's promise'.

Under pressure, last season and besieged by Jose's antics (I pray for the day when the reasons behind his sacking become clear), I'm almost 100% certain that the 'promise' was made (unless Kane's camp is simply lying - and I don't believe they are - they've been suckered by it), it almost doesn't matter what the promise details were, but it does strike at the heart of Levy's management character.

Personally, whenever I've had a high performer point a gun at my head, I've refused to comply with their demands; do it once and it will happen again and again, once you lose your leadership and integrity, it's like virginity, you can never get it back.

I've heard and read much about Kane's camp stupidity, I've even laughed at them for their naivety and Charlie's stupidity, but Levy really is the culprit that started all this.

Under pressure, Levy appears to believe that saying anything that will get the immediate issue resolved is acceptable.

It isn't.

Kane virtually switched off towards the end of last season knowing that in his mind he was soon to be off - almost certainly that wouldn't have happened if Levy had stood tall and stayed firm and reminded him that he had 4 years left on his deal and that it was the club who would consider what the way forward would be.

Instead, we've had weeks and weeks of disruption, yes Charlie has been exactly that, a complete Charlie who with no experience of building and crafting a deal or protecting his client's rep, has been found out to be what he is, an amateur, with absolutely no cards to play.

Levy has brought in Paraticci, he now needs to step away from the footballing side of the business completely and let him get on with it and all we can do is hope he has more of a backbone when it comes to confrontation than Levy does.

Making silly knee-jerk promises leads to disaster; I am told that Kane's camp are all angry and won't forget in a hurry, Harry for not getting his 'promised' move, Charlie for being made to look a real Charlie.

No one comes out of this clean, not just Harry.
Click to expand...
Levy is a businessman & would know all too well that he held all of the cards, noting the length of contract remaining. Why on earth would he promise Kane a route out of the club just to get him off of his back!? Levy would have been in millions of tough negotiations & meetings with far more intimidating people than Harry, so I just don’t buy it that he would cave in to appease Harry & get him off his back.
There is no history of Levy doing that either. Modric & Bale were both aware that Levy wouldn’t sanction a sale to another PL side irrespective of their wishes or the bid received. So I’m more of the opinion that Levy stated that he would let Harry leave if his terms were met. The fact those terms weren’t met are down to Harry & Man City, not Spurs or Levy.
 
Unless you have it in writing a gentleman's agreement means didly squat.

Anyone thinking Levy would honour that is an idiot.

City weren't willing to pay Kanes transfer fee.

For once I don't blame Levy here. The only criticism I would chuck his way is the deadline should have been set before the season started. That way we wouldn't have to put up with this circus all summer.
 
Its simple.

Kane - I want a move if the club doesnt get CL football at the end of the season
Levy - OK if we dont get CL football at the end of the season you can have a move at market value.

HOW MANY DIFFERENT WAYS DOES THIS NEED TO BE DISCUSSED. Man City low balled on their offer. Kane had top goals & assists last season. A season he didnt even put maximum effort into. Spurs played poor football and he still got those figures. He is England Captain and one of the most marketable faces in English football.

Levy protected Spurs interests in ensuring we got market value. The only people who made a mess of this are City and Kane. End Of Story
 
Even the CL football objective doesn't stack up.

He's played in the Champions League. He wants to leave so he can play for a team that can win the big trophies not just participate in the competitions. So qualifying for the CL can hardly have been a condition of him staying.

A more cynical view would be that he had a vested interest in us not qualifying for the CL to give him a legitimate reason for leaving.
 
I still think that if Levy's expectations had been realistic then City might have tried to meet them. We can't just point the "low ball" finger at them. The point of negotiation is that you meet in the middle, not just stay in your corner. We also know that Pep is way more qualified to assess a player's value than Levy. I think City have called it absolutely right to walk away if Levy won't go below £150m. I sort of respect them not throwing billionaires money around and playing by the same rules as the rest of us.

So the question becomes has Levy been penny wise, pound foolish again? Do we get more value out of Kane leaving at a slightly lower or price or staying? I guess we are going to find out at some point in the future. When that contract comes down to 2 years left and Kane refuses to sign a new one, then I think we should always get the money and recycle it.

Final thought, I'm sure that Levy and Fabio know that they will now be inundated with requests for release clauses in future deals. Any player worth their salts isn't going to sign a contract and get imprisoned by Levy. Those rules of engagement have just changed because of the Kane saga. They will only change back if we start having success on the pitch and players want to stay.
 
I dont often disagree with you Muttley so please take it the right way.

How do you come to the conclusion that Levy isnt realistic. If you think something is worth £150m. Being offered £100m (Not really £100m in cash, more like in bits and add ons) isnt negotiating. Negotiating is offering £125m cash up front or £100m cash plus a player to bridge some of the gap. Something to think about and negotiate with. They low balled and Levy reacted with facts and figures. A bit like Borussia Dotmund do when they are getting bullied by the likes of Bayern or Man Utd. This is what he can go for, by this date and if not then he remains.

Where do you get the idea Pep is way more qualified to asses a players value? He has only ever known unlimited pots of money and being able to bully clubs into selling. Spurs have the experience with Berbatov, Carrick, Modric & Bale where huge clubs pushed for them to be sold. Not a single occassion was it done on anything other than Levys terms. He knows exactly what players are worth to Spurs imo

Release clauses can also be a godsend. I would have one in every contract. I cant see a negative for them tbh. If a player does well enough to command a move at release clause level, everyone is happy. Seems to me Kane should have had a release clause in his contract of £150m to stop all this arsing about
 
muttley said:
I still think that if Levy's expectations had been realistic then City might have tried to meet them. We can't just point the "low ball" finger at them. The point of negotiation is that you meet in the middle, not just stay in your corner. We also know that Pep is way more qualified to assess a player's value than Levy. I think City have called it absolutely right to walk away if Levy won't go below £150m. I sort of respect them not throwing billionaires money around and playing by the same rules as the rest of us.

So the question becomes has Levy been penny wise, pound foolish again? Do we get more value out of Kane leaving at a slightly lower or price or staying? I guess we are going to find out at some point in the future. When that contract comes down to 2 years left and Kane refuses to sign a new one, then I think we should always get the money and recycle it.

Final thought, I'm sure that Levy and Fabio know that they will now be inundated with requests for release clauses in future deals. Any player worth their salts isn't going to sign a contract and get imprisoned by Levy. Those rules of engagement have just changed because of the Kane saga. They will only change back if we start having success on the pitch and players want to stay.
Click to expand...


We can do whatever we want to those naffers.

If they are going to continue to buy titles then MAKE THEM PAY THROUGH THE NOSE. There is nothing wrong with what Levy did. They are weak this year. He just made the league more competitive and all the other teams should be thanking him.

Despite the fact that I don't like the influence Kane has on our club's playing style we are more competitive and there are a lot of supporters, including me, that think he did the right thing which in turn has helped the club atmosphere as well.

I also think that City tapped up Kane and aren't going to protest too much because Levy will play that card.....it may have already been played privately.
 
muttley said:
I still think that if Levy's expectations had been realistic then City might have tried to meet them. We can't just point the "low ball" finger at them. The point of negotiation is that you meet in the middle, not just stay in your corner. We also know that Pep is way more qualified to assess a player's value than Levy. I think City have called it absolutely right to walk away if Levy won't go below £150m. I sort of respect them not throwing billionaires money around and playing by the same rules as the rest of us.

So the question becomes has Levy been penny wise, pound foolish again? Do we get more value out of Kane leaving at a slightly lower or price or staying? I guess we are going to find out at some point in the future. When that contract comes down to 2 years left and Kane refuses to sign a new one, then I think we should always get the money and recycle it.

Final thought, I'm sure that Levy and Fabio know that they will now be inundated with requests for release clauses in future deals. Any player worth their salts isn't going to sign a contract and get imprisoned by Levy. Those rules of engagement have just changed because of the Kane saga. They will only change back if we start having success on the pitch and players want to stay.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I wrong Muttley but I thought you agreed with the £150m valuation based on a post you made a few days ago suggesting you'd be happy if Nuno excluded Kane from the first team squad all season?

It's hard to judge whether Levy has been penny wise, pound foolish without knowing exactly what it was that City offered. I've heard and read so many different figures starting as low as £80m plus add ons up to £120m.

As to your final point about the club being inundated with requests for release clauses, I raised this a while back and Ex said the players/agents didn't want them in England because they would have to agree to lower wages and benefits in return. If that's the case they can't have it both ways. Personally I would be happy if every player had a release clause if they wanted it as it would provide clarity and avoid these scenarios we keep finding ourselves in. But I suspect it's only the players who already thinking about moving in the future who really want them.
 
No to re
Gary Onedaysoon said:
Correct me if I wrong Muttley but I thought you agreed with the £150m valuation based on a post you made a few days ago suggesting you'd be happy if Nuno excluded Kane from the first team squad all season?

It's hard to judge whether Levy has been penny wise, pound foolish without knowing exactly what it was that City offered. I've heard and read so many different figures starting as low as £80m plus add ons up to £120m.

As to your final point about the club being inundated with requests for release clauses, I raised this a while back and Ex said the players/agents didn't want them in England because they would have to agree to lower wages and benefits in return. If that's the case they can't have it both ways. Personally I would be happy if every player had a release clause if they wanted it as it would provide clarity and avoid these scenarios we keep finding ourselves in. But I suspect it's only the players who already thinking about moving in the future who really want them.
Click to expand...


No to release clauses. The players have way too much power as contracted employees already. The lack of a release clause makes it a balanced and equal agreement.
 
muttley said:
I still think that if Levy's expectations had been realistic then City might have tried to meet them. We can't just point the "low ball" finger at them. The point of negotiation is that you meet in the middle, not just stay in your corner. We also know that Pep is way more qualified to assess a player's value than Levy. I think City have called it absolutely right to walk away if Levy won't go below £150m. I sort of respect them not throwing billionaires money around and playing by the same rules as the rest of us.

So the question becomes has Levy been penny wise, pound foolish again? Do we get more value out of Kane leaving at a slightly lower or price or staying? I guess we are going to find out at some point in the future. When that contract comes down to 2 years left and Kane refuses to sign a new one, then I think we should always get the money and recycle it.

Final thought, I'm sure that Levy and Fabio know that they will now be inundated with requests for release clauses in future deals. Any player worth their salts isn't going to sign a contract and get imprisoned by Levy. Those rules of engagement have just changed because of the Kane saga. They will only change back if we start having success on the pitch and players want to stay.
Click to expand...
Daniel can do whatever he likes. Harry is our player & we have him under contract for the next 3 years. He's one of the top strikers in world football & we had a week to replace him with who exactly? It's a tough world out there & Daniel did what was best for the club but ultimately it was City's dithering that cost Harry his move.

On another note, City splashed a £100M on Grealish (who they didn't need) & expected Daniel to fold & accept the same amount for the England captain. Are they bloody stupid?
 
Littlest Hobo said:
I dont often disagree with you Muttley so please take it the right way.

How do you come to the conclusion that Levy isnt realistic. If you think something is worth £150m. Being offered £100m (Not really £100m in cash, more like in bits and add ons) isnt negotiating. Negotiating is offering £125m cash up front or £100m cash plus a player to bridge some of the gap. Something to think about and negotiate with. They low balled and Levy reacted with facts and figures. A bit like Borussia Dotmund do when they are getting bullied by the likes of Bayern or Man Utd. This is what he can go for, by this date and if not then he remains.

Where do you get the idea Pep is way more qualified to asses a players value? He has only ever known unlimited pots of money and being able to bully clubs into selling. Spurs have the experience with Berbatov, Carrick, Modric & Bale where huge clubs pushed for them to be sold. Not a single occassion was it done on anything other than Levys terms. He knows exactly what players are worth to Spurs imo

Release clauses can also be a godsend. I would have one in every contract. I cant see a negative for them tbh. If a player does well enough to command a move at release clause level, everyone is happy. Seems to me Kane should have had a release clause in his contract of £150m to stop all this arsing about
Click to expand...

So let me explain:

Do you think City would have gone to £135m if Levy was NEGOTIATING? By negotiating, I mean that they value him at £100m and we value him at £150m and we settle on a price somewhere in between, also factoring in payment terms. Did that ever happen? Also, if City had come in with £150m, would the price have turned into £160m in the 11th hour like we've seen before?

We're talking about a chairman that had over a half a billion valued squad in 2017 that dissipated into the sales of Walker and loose change for Eriksen and Dembele. A chairman that only spent money when his team fluked their way to a CL final and he got a windfall. A chairman that saw his club fall through a glass ceiling and fall to less than 60 points in a season in the PL. So you won't catch me blowing smoke up his arse for his football financial management over these last few years and I'm not sure whether Spurs are a winner or a loser with this latest news.

The question becomes, will our 1st team and squad be better or worse for having a this asset in it or have we just deferred our bigger project by a year? Of course, all of this is assuming that City would have played ball and met us closer to the valuation.

Kane isn't worth £150m in a market where you only have one interested party, and a bunch of young pups worth less in the next year. Pep and City know that.
 
Gary Onedaysoon said:
Correct me if I wrong Muttley but I thought you agreed with the £150m valuation based on a post you made a few days ago suggesting you'd be happy if Nuno excluded Kane from the first team squad all season?

It's hard to judge whether Levy has been penny wise, pound foolish without knowing exactly what it was that City offered. I've heard and read so many different figures starting as low as £80m plus add ons up to £120m.

As to your final point about the club being inundated with requests for release clauses, I raised this a while back and Ex said the players/agents didn't want them in England because they would have to agree to lower wages and benefits in return. If that's the case they can't have it both ways. Personally I would be happy if every player had a release clause if they wanted it as it would provide clarity and avoid these scenarios we keep finding ourselves in. But I suspect it's only the players who already thinking about moving in the future who really want them.
Click to expand...

So I never really valued him at £150m. I said if Levy managed to get it then good for him. He didn't, so sort of proves I was right. What I also said is that if Levy wanted to stick him in the academy for 3 years then I would back him. That is because he cost us zero and isn't worth £150m. So nobody is losing £50m a year. That is just a pretend number, as we've all found out this week. Just like saying Kane is worth £150m because the media valued Lewandowski at over a 100m euros for 2-3 days. More fiction. Just like some of the Ronaldo numbers.

I did say that I would snatch their hand off for £100m and Laporte in the early days and consistently through the summer. That was my only way of getting top dollar for Kane.

In all honesty, I actually expected this saga to finish at around £135m. I would have taken that deal.
 
muttley said:
So I never really valued him at £150m. I said if Levy managed to get it then good for him. He didn't, so sort of proves I was right. What I also said is that if Levy wanted to stick him in the academy for 3 years then I would back him. That is because he cost us zero and isn't worth £150m. So nobody is losing £50m a year. That is just a pretend number, as we've all found out this week. Just like saying Kane is worth £150m because the media valued Lewandowski at over a 100m euros for 2-3 days. More fiction. Just like some of the Ronaldo numbers.

I did say that I would snatch their hand off for £100m and Laporte in the early days and consistently through the summer. That was my only way of getting top dollar for Kane.

In all honesty, I actually expected this saga to finish at around £135m. I would have taken that deal.
Click to expand...
This £150m - if indeed this is the number, it's still speculation - wasn't a number plucked out of the air by Levy. He has a team working for him and I'm sure Fabio would have had some input too. And there are many in the world of football who also think this is a realistic fee for him.

There are other considerations too -

We (as in the public) don't know how much our target replacements will cost. As a minimum we needed to come out of this with a squad that's at least as good as it was before Kane left. But if the cost of the replacements is greater than the money we'd receive for Kane then we either don't sell or wait until our valuation is met.

It's clear also that the Spurs hierarchy were angry with how Kane and City went about this. And I can understand why they took stance even if it was only to stand up say we're not going to be bullied into selling Kane for a number less than what we consider to be his valuation. And that lays down a marker for any future approaches.

City's request to come to the negotiating table is bollocks. That should have been their first move when the season ended. And behind closed doors. Instead they used Pep to make the request in public only after their and Kane's PR strategy went pear-shaped. That's not how you create a win-win for both parties in the real world.
 
I would never start negotiating until the offer is close enough that when you meet in the middle your happy. I don't think City got over 100 which is not close enough for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.