Your opinion on a gentleman’s agreement? A chance to get one over on the naive/honourable?

[Fortitude]

Supposedly, Messi got shafted by one; Kane is the thick of it because of one, but on the other hand, when honoured, a player can play out of his skin almost with a sense of duty - see Fergie with Ronaldo.

Having clauses and agreements stoneclad and written into contracts obviously makes such agreements redundant, but the point of them in the first place is two parties who have to already have a solid rapport giving their word not to feck the other over, by breaking said agreement, any such relationship is almost irreconcilable and from that point on, bad blood is a formality. I don’t think it matters what industry you work in - there has to be foundation for a gentleman’s to be struck in the first place and reneging on it is a declaration there’s rarely any going back from.

At the time Kane spoke out against Levy, numerous posters on here sided with Levy and deigned Kane a fool for being duped in the first place. Those people may have a point, in cold, hard terms, but the practice is commonplace in football and we’re more likely to hear about them when broken and the disgruntled party then airs their grievance.

No real ender to this; just find it an interesting topic to observe reactions to. Bearing in mind gentleman’s agreements are not uncommon in football, do you think Kane got done over on this, or is it as black and white to you as: no formal contract? Tough shit?

 

[Lay]

I have no idea why anyone would agree to a gentleman's agreement.

 

[poleglass red]

I think Grealish and his agent did it the right way. Everything has to be clearly stated in said contract. I didn't follow the messi one too much, but the Kane one reeks of naivete especially when you consider who he was dealing with.

 

[meamth]

I have no idea why anyone would agree to a gentleman's agreement.

Sir Alex is a gentleman when he promised Ronaldo to give him the move after one more season...

 

[Suedesi]

The problem is when you're talking about hundred of millions of pounds a 'gentleman agreement' is naive - you need proper paperwork with schedules and real clauses in there to engineer a move.

As a New Yorker I'd say no formal contract = tough shit, but I do have some sympathy towards Kane if indeed there was an agreement with Levy to let him go.

 

[Zaphod2319]

If your money and destination is dictated by a written contract and you are dumb enough not to get any agreement amended into the written contract you have no room to complain

 

[Deery]

I have no idea why anyone would agree to a gentleman's agreement.

You never laid a bet..

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Kane was dim especially given Modric said that Levy reneged on a similar agreement not so long ago.

 

[Dancfc]

I guess it's a trust your instinct on the character you have that agreement with.

Kane trusting Levy was beyong stupid given he has form on going back on his word (Modric), what on earth made him think he would be treated differently?

 

[SirAnderson]

Stupid.

 

[Green_Red]

Not worth the paper it's written on

 

[Zen86]

Taking a tough stance and reneging on a gentleman’s agreement is well within a clubs right, but it’s counter productive to have a pissed off player who wants away on the books. Especially when he’s important to that team. Nobody really wins in that scenario if the player loses motivation.

 

[poleglass red]

when I was younger, I fancied one of my neighbour's daughter, she was in the same year as me in school. Her dad got wind of my devious plans of seducing her and quickly threatened me, by saying "he would bate my ballix in" . At that moment we entered into a gentleman's agreement to which I honoured.

 

[Dolf]

Not everything can be written in a contract.

Promising a player, for example Ronaldo, that he can leave next summer if he stays for just one more year is not something you can agree in contract because you don't know how much the player will be worth in a year and you want a fair transfer fee so a release clause is not an option in that case.

I think sometimes a gentleman's agreement is not a strange thing but you better be sure that you are actually dealing with a gentlemen.

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

'loyality is rare, greed and business not so much'

 

[gfive]

Complaining about an informal arrangement not being honoured is naive, since neither party is there to do the other a favour. Contracts exist so that each party is bound by whatever agreement is reached.

 

[Dec9003]

I think we probably don’t know enough about the ins and outs of the Kane situation. For all we know Levy could still be happy to let him go provided the right offer comes, which he’s well within his rights to do. As others have said, Grealish did it right really. Get a reasonable release clause that works for both club and player, then you can just crack on working at a club and if another team wants you they know what they have to do.

 

[Fortitude]

Kane was dim especially given Modric said that Levy reneged on a similar agreement not so long ago.

Now this I agree with. Not like Levy doesn’t have form, but I wonder what he thought the conclusion would be to feck his star turn over?

 

[LoneStar]

Gentleman's agreement doesn't make sense at all to me. It makes sense when two parties are regularly in contact and would still benefit from each other after the agreement action takes place.

It's more common between an employer and employee in certain industries, since there is a chance the employee might return back to work with their former employer. Or say, between two agents since they are likely to deal with each other again at some point.

Once Harry Kane leaves, Spurs have no other benefit from him. And it doesn't matter whether they leave on good or bad terms (especially given his age). Secondly, they are totally unreliable. Let's say the player has an agreement with his manager or CEO. What if the manager or CEO are replaced by someone else? And the new person doesn't honour the agreement.

When you are dealing in millions, it makes zero sense to have word of honour contracts with someone, especially the CEO of the club.

 

[Fortitude]

Taking a tough stance and reneging on a gentleman’s agreement is well within a clubs right, but it’s counter productive to have a pissed off player who wants away on the books. Especially when he’s important to that team. Nobody really wins in that scenario if the player loses motivation.

From the moment it’s reneged upon it’s an open declaration of if not war, then almost completely soured relations; doesn’t make sense to win the battle but completely feck yourself in terms of the war.

Wasn’t that horse, Fergie and Magnier’s gentleman’s agreement being reneged upon the touchpaper to the Glazers acquisition?

 

[Oranges038]

Sir Alex is a gentleman when he promised Ronaldo to give him the move after one more season...

Probably the only one that really came out as expected. They are not worth anything when it comes to the money involved.

Keane had agreed to join Blackburn and ended up at Utd.

There was one agreed with Ballsack, that he would sign in 2006 after his last year at Bayern, we all know how that turned out.

Evra also had one, where Ed/ the club were going to let him leave, but then put out a statement saying they were taking up a one year option on his contract.

I am sure there are plenty more.

Levy would never stick to an agreement where he might lose a few quid, I remember seeing an interview or reading it somewhere, that he deducted the price of 5 shirts that he gave Zagreb from the fee that they paid for Modric.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Only one party is happy with a gentleman’s agreement. The party that holds all the power.

They are meaningless. They don’t even exist in the real world at the sharp end of things.

Never trust someone that can’t be trusted to document something.

 

[spaceboyRSA]

A gentleman’s agreement assumes a gentleman. Very rare when you talking about this field. It’s one thing having a gentleman’s agreement with your mates over something, completely different when you talking millions or hundreds of millions of pounds

 

[Zlatattack]

Stupid thing to do with Levy.

 

[stefan92]

Probably the only one that really came out as expected. They are not worth anything when it comes to the money involved.

Keane had agreed to join Blackburn and ended up at Utd.

There was one agreed with Ballsack, that he would sign in 2006 after his last year at Bayern, we all know how that turned out.

Evra also had one, where Ed/ the club were going to let him leave, but then put out a statement saying they were taking up a one year option on his contract.

I am sure there are plenty more.

Levy would never stick to an agreement where he might lose a few quid, I remember seeing an interview or reading it somewhere, that he deducted the price of 5 shirts that he gave Zagreb from the fee that they paid for Modric.

Sancho to United also happened as expected.

 

[roonster09]

Depends on the club or the person you are dealing with. If it's Levy, I would want everything to be written in the contract without any loopholes.

Also things change quickly in football, so IMO everything should be in the contract. For example, Kane makes a gentlemen agreement with Levy, what if Spurs owners sells the club or Levy is replaced by someone else?

 

[romufc]

SAF and Ronaldo had a gentlemen's agreement, he told him to give him one more year and both parties respected it.

Levy must have said I will let you go for the right price.

Having seen Grealish go for £100m, Kane is worth £130/140m easily. The problem City have is that Spurs know they have the money and they need Kane. He is a proven goal scorer and almost guarantees 20 PL goals so why would Levy sell for £100m?

 

[Withnail]

If it isn't in writing it doesn't mean a thing.

Very early on in one of my first office jobs, one of the older heads gave me that advice. If you're ever offered anything or have an agreement with management get it in writing. It's too easy to deny a verbal agreement ever happened.

 

[JPRouve]

Sancho to United also happened as expected.

Benzema to Real Madrid despite the fac that it wasn't the best offer also happened as expected. It's a very common thing.

 

[Nico87]

Levy doesn’t seem like a man that you can trust but in this instance it doesn’t seem like he’s done much wrong. Kane has leaked the fact they have a gentleman’s agreement but kept very vague about the terms of it.

 

[JPRouve]

These agreements exist because one side doesn't have enough leverage, to have it in a contract.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Now this I agree with. Not like Levy doesn’t have form, but I wonder what he thought the conclusion would be to feck his star turn over?

You could look at it as Levy making sure he extracts every last penny from City. I think we can only say that he's truly reneged if Kane doesn't get his move. You get the feeling that this could be Kane's last chance for that big move.

 

[OleBoiii]

One of my pet peeves are slimy rats who find loopholes in the legal system to get away with clearly unethical stuff. Another pet peeve is people who equate "legal" to "fair".

I find no problem with gentleman's agreements. If we shake on something, then we have a deal. If you break the promise then you're a low-life piece of shit who's worse than most criminals.

 

[sullydnl]

If I was a footballer I wouldn't bank on a gentleman's agreement unless I knew I had an extremely lucrative get out should the other person not honour it. And if they don't honour it, you have to be really willing to commit to then standing up for yourself, be it through slamming them publicly, not turning up for training, whatever. Gotta be willing and able to feck them over if they try to feck you over first. Otherwise you're setting yourself up for a fall because there's a lot of money at stake and very few people who won't go back on their word.

Basically only go along with gentlemen's agreements that will be hell for the other person to break. Otherwise (and most times even still) get it in writing.

 

[Grande]

An agreement is a word, and a word is binding, as it is also an opportunity for the liar to lie. Those keeping their agreements can be trusted, those who don’t, can’t.

 

[Oranges038]

Sancho to United also happened as expected.

I wasn't aware of that, I thought Dortmund accepted nearly 50m less than what they wanted last year because they stuck for money.

 

[Reyoji-Utd]

In Kane case, is the agreement mention how much he can go for? I mean Levy per reports will let Kane go if City willing to pay 150m pound. Also the point is Kane was openly stating he wants to leave and also saying how much he should be worth even before Spurs.

If the agreement also mention how much he can go like 100m then its Levy wrong.

 

[stefan92]

I wasn't aware of that, I thought Dortmund accepted nearly 50m less than what they wanted last year because they stuck for money.

They accepted less than they wanted the year before, but the final agreement was quite close to their adjusted agreement with Sancho, at least that's what German media reported. The lower sum was due to the remaining length of his contract, not because of financial problems.

 

[gza the genius]

As others have said it's basically all about how specific the agreement was. If it was just "we'll let you go if the right offer comes in" then Kane doesn't really have much room to gripe. It doesn't really seem like Spurs have told Kane he can't leave it more just seems like City haven't made an appropriate offer yet. If City offer 130m+ or whatever and Levy says no then you'd have to side with Kane. It's all a bit mute until something like that happens.

 

[11101]

It depends on the person you are dealing with. In the case of SAF, or other managers of that ilk, his word was his bond as much as any contract would be. I reckon you could probably still trust the likes of Ole and Klopp.

With money grabbers like Levy, or snakes like Raiola, i wouldnt trust a word that comes out of their mouths. Everything must be written down and signed.