How this Spurs man proved that power still lies with clubs, not players:

Image for How this Spurs man proved that power still lies with clubs, not players:

Daniel Levy celebrates a decade at Tottneham. But has he been a force for good?One of the most positive results of this year’s transfer deadline day was Tottenham Hotspur managing to keep hold of Croatian playmaker Luka Modric. To many this can be seen as a victory for football and evidence that player power doesn’t always win.

The Croat had previously admitted his desire to leave the North London club earlier this summer but his request was met with a firm response from Chairman Daniel Levy, the player would not be sold. Chelsea made no secret of the fact that they wished to sign him and had three separate bids rejected by Spurs.

The final bid, according to manager Harry Redknapp, came on the 30th of August and it is believed to have been worth £40m, £30m cash plus Blues defender Alex as part of the deal. Spurs stood firm and again rejected the advances of their London rivals.

Modirc made a number of attempts to seal his exit from White Hart Lane and met with Levy more than once to discuss his future. Although the message from the club was clear a number of people, from the media especially thought it near impossible for them to hold on to an unhappy player.

The Croat’s exit seemed even more likely when he asked to be left out of the Spurs squad that travelled north to face champions Manchester United and even Redknapp made comments that indicated his departure could be likely.

More evidence to suggest Modric would be sold was the fact that Spurs had been in a similar situation in August 2008, when Bulgarian striker Dimitar Berbatov sparked a similar sequence of events in an effort to secure his eventual transfer to United. Levy had at first taken the same hard line stance and insisted the player would not leave, but on deadline day he completed a £31m transfer.

Though it seems both Chairman and club have learnt from this and were determined not to lose arguably their best player, and especially not to one of their biggest rivals. The player stated he wanted to play Champions League football, but as manager Redknapp suggested keeping players like Modric will help get them back into Europe’s premier competition.

Similar again to this was Carlos Tevez’s situation at Manchester City, like Modric he had only recently signed a new contract but decided he now wanted to leave the club and yet again most expected him to do so. Like Spurs City stood firm and both players remain at their respective clubs.

Although many will argue that you can’t keep unhappy players this has to be seen as a victory for football as a whole. Players have for too long have been seen as the ones holding the power in the game but the situation of both Modric and Tevez demonstrates that this is not always the case.

Though it remains to be seen how dedicated they will be to the cause this year but for now both clubs have managed to hang on to two of their most prized assets. are seeking new writers to join the team! If you’re passionate about football, drop us a line at “” to learn more.

For an opportunity to win tickets to see Bolton take on Manchester United, click here!

Or have a look at the ten strikers that we think will lead the race for the Golden Boot next season

Share this article


  • David says:

    At the end of the day only Levy can hold his head up high. Chelsea–admin and supporters, Harry, Modric and the media as a whole acted apallingly throughout.

  • Feenix says:

    What I fail to understand is the fact that Chelsea were told he was not for sale three time and no amount of money would change Levy’s mind yet they persisted to use the tabloids to push and push for the sale which inturn unsettled the player and the rest of the team. Surley something should be done in these cases to reprimand these rich clubs that have all the money but lack decency and don’t care who they upset in their quest for power. This cannot go on in football otherwise the premier league will just consist of three or four teams that win everything year in year out and take away true competition. Who wants a premier league where all the players just want to play for these three or four clubs beause they offer 500 grand a week. The money now being paid to players is obscene when you think of all the poverty in the world. It cannot go on and FIFA or whoever need to introduce wage capping to make the competition based on skill and not just who has the most money.

    • col says:

      I totally agree with everything you say but you are speaking from a moral,common sense and decent ethical position.There lies the problem,FIFA are rotten to the core and could,nt understand how a man who kicks a ball could and should earn more money a week than any other person could earn in a year and while many people are struggling to live a decent life even to the point of dying through lack of food,clean water or medicine that cost pennies.Their answer is to do some charitable works here and there to enhance their public image.While football clubs are owned by morally corrupt people like Abramovich and spend money on people who kick footballs like it was of real world importance nothing will change until football in the UK is a 4 team league,totally devalued as a sporting contest but a licence to print money for a few morally despicable people.FIFA,UEFA,ABRAMOVICH,SHEIK SAND IN UM TOES and all the other despoilers of the beautiful game need a reality check.Stop them before they ruin the worlds oldest,greatest team game.

  • spur1950 says:

    thank u DANIEL LEVY and to the MEDIA,TALKSPORT an espicially that arsewipe the ginger w*****r and last but not least SKYSPORTS the lowest arsewipes in the world

  • woody2221 says:

    its all well and good to call for wage caps but there are things you need to bare in mind, when real madrid bought beckham for if i remember 27 mil(many years ago) they were slated for the amount they paid as they were in serious finacial shit, they then came out and explained they would recoup the entire fee from shirt sales in asia alone in one year, so basically he was worth alot finacially to the club, when your talking about those figures no one is gonna join a club for 10k a week knowing that the club is earning 10s on mil a year out of them, secondly an a list actor like clooney say gets what 10 20 mil a film its only acting why the huge fee? easy with him in the film it gets better box office ratings, more investors ect.also over in the states they have a salary cap and there top sportsmen get just as much if not more money than footballers and american footballers play about 20 games a season if they reach the play offs, my point is this its easy to say they shouldnt get the wages they do but footballs a big buisness and aslong as it is the people involved are gonna get paid well

  • tony says:

    football like everything in the freeworld is supply and demand.if a club wants to sell a player before the end of his contract they will.there should be a buy out clause in every cant keep a player who doesnt want to stay.its easy to stumble and miss kick a open goal ,when you want to leave a club.reality rears its ugly head.

    • col says:

      Selling drugs in schools would make money and you could apply the supply and demand argument,but it does,nt make it right does it?.Laws cant govern everything sometimes people just know what is right and wrong and todays world of football is wrong and it needs to change or eventually become meaningless as it is already heading that way.

    • John White says:

      “if a club wants to sell a player before the end of his contract they will”
      Not if the player refuses to leave, they won’t. The only way to ensure the player leaves is to pay up the whole of the remainder of his contract and leave him as a free agent, which would mean the club would waive the right to a transfer fee, which is the last thing they want.
      They might leave the player out of their squad, which would put pressure on the player, but would also reduce his transfer value.
      A player being awkward only has an effect during the transfer window. And as has been shown it can fail to get its desired outcome. If awkwardness continues it shows the player is not to be trsuted, and makes the player a less desirable option to other clubs.
      You are using the same argument that has been used as to why Modric was definitely going to be sold this summer. This argument has been disproved,
      In every contract, each side has ecrtain rights and responsibilities. If both sides are content to waive their rights in return for compensation then the contract can be dismanteled. But it takes two to tango.
      Reality has already reared its head. Neither Modric nor Tevez have moved clubs. Nor for that matter has Dos Santos who also expected to leave Tottenham.

    • woody2221 says:

      why should there be a buy out clause? if the contracts are not there then the clubs wouldnt be willing to pay the transfer fees,wages, loyalty bonuses ect, as reguards to miss kickin a ball they are supposed to be pros, as for not keeping a player who dont want to be there. in respect to modric at spurs there is no financial benefit to the club in selling him, say they get 40milfor him its gonna take atleast half that to replace him, plus someone that good will expect atleast 1ook a week, over the five years that modric has left thats nearly 15 mil in total, take into accout the fee spurs paid for him and they make a loss, so its in the clubs intrest to make him stay right up until someone wants to pay ronaldo money

  • dixta says:

    agree that the gutter sports media sky and talksport mixed it up for all it was worth. i watch sky but take their “sources” increasingly with a pinch of salt. as for Talksport, i stopped listening to that tripe years ago, it’s credibility is lower than a snake’s belly.

Comments are closed.