The Hilton
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2011
- Messages
- 4,160
I haven't taken that position, and I don't think @balaks has either.I don’t believe I asserted that Kane was lied to - read the first part of the sentence quoted. I obviously don’t know. My point was that your position seems to be that would be fine if he was, because it only matters what’s in the contract.
My original point I think was that, whatever was actually agreed, Kane clearly interpreted it that he’d be allowed to leave - he, no doubt, feels let down. Even if he was wrong about that, why would anyone think he’s going to sign a new contract when under the belief he was misled?
If Kane was promised he could leave under the circumstances that were present when City were in for him, or that it would be advertised that he could go this summer, then that's obviously underhanded from Levy given that they refused to entertain offers. However, the blame still lies squarely with Kane for being so naive.
As for your final point, I wouldn't expect someone to sign a contract with terms that weren't acceptable to them, so given that he signed a contract with no way out, then I can only assume that his current situation was either acceptable to him or unforeseen, neither of which would suggest that there was an agreement that he could leave, that just happened to be kept out of the actual, legal agreement that he signed.