Interview with King

[Matt_B]

Skipper Andy King believes loan star Kyle Naughton could build a career at Leicester City.

The England Under-21 international has returned to Tottenham after an outstanding campaign which saw him voted young player of the year by both the club and the official supporters group.

Manager Sven-Goran Eriksson would love to sign Naughton permanently, but knows City's failure to make the Premier League this season could weaken his hand and has expressed fears that he could miss out.

King, himself a former City young player of the year, and named with Naughton in the PFA's championship team of the season, said: "Kyle will look back at the season and see it has been good for him and maybe he can build his future at this club.

"We had good quality loanees from big clubs last season and they did well. You have only to look at Kyle."

King knows that City are planning a summer spending spree in an all-out assault on the top flight next season.

And, even as a virtual ever-present over the past three campaigns, he knows that no-one's place is guaranteed.

"That is part and parcel of the game. There are very few players who go through a season playing all the games," he said.

"There may be a squad rotation next season and I am sure, if it is done right, everyone will be happy."

King also believes City will deal with the expectation of being tipped by many to realise their Premier dream next season.

He said: "I think we will cope with the expectation. We have experienced players and the ones the manager might bring in are going to be quality, and together we want to reach the goal of promotion.

"After Paulo Sousa left, we were always hopeful that we could get in the play-offs and we had that genuine chance.

"Now the manager and his staff will look at things in the summer."

Only mentioning it because I love the barbed quote:

After Paulo Sousa left, we were always hopeful that we could get in the play-offs...

 

[East Anglia Fox]

The article says Kyle Naughton has 'returned to Tottenham' but I thought now he's actually been released. So isn't that kind of misleading?

 

[Gore Lowin]

The article says Kyle Naughton has 'returned to Tottenham' but I thought now he's actually been released. So isn't that kind of misleading?

No he hasn't been released, the list Steven (?) posted were possible players spurs could make available for transfer.

 

[fox58]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ir-Kyle-Walker-and-Kyle-Naughton-on-loan.html

Colin showing an interest

 

[DesertFox]

I'm being driven slightly mad by this idea of a 'released list'. There's not really any such thing.

Most players are under contract. You can't 'release' someone from a contract without there being negotiations on both sides to terminate said contract. In reality this doesn't happen very often. For example, we've told Robbie Neilsen that he can find another club, but that doesn't mean we've terminated his contract and he can sign for whoever he likes tomorrow. I imagine we'd be looking for a small fee, and I doubt we'd want to pay up the next year of his wages. That only happens in extreme cases.

Those that are out of contract are free to go, whether the club they were previously contracted to want it or not. It's not up to the club to 'release' anyone at the end of their contract, it's the player's decision.

Those that are surplus to requirements, as Naughton is for Spurs, are still contracted to the club but are simply being made available for sale. There's no way a club will 'release' a player for free when they are worth millions.

The only player to have been 'released' recently is Marlon King, from prison. That's maybe what our released list is.

 

[Jeff]

For example, we've told Robbie Neilsen that he can find another club, but that doesn't mean we've terminated his contract and he can sign for whoever he likes tomorrow. I imagine we'd be looking for a small fee

I think it's more likely we'll let him go on a free transfer if he finds another club.

 

[DesertFox]

I think it's more likely we'll let him go on a free transfer if he finds another club.

Ture, but it's very unlikely we're going to pay up his contract and 'release' him first. It will be a negotiated sale of sorts, we will let him move for little or no fee, he will agree new terms to be paid less money, presumably. At no point will we 'release' him.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Those that are out of contract are free to go, whether the club they were previously contracted to want it or not. It's not up to the club to 'release' anyone at the end of their contract, it's the player's decision.

Where do you get this from? It's absolutely up to the club to simply allow a players' contract to run out without prospect of a renewal. If a player is surplus to requirements the club will not extend his contract; he will be released.

 

[DesertFox]

Where do you get this from? It's absolutely up to the club to simply allow a players' contract to run out without prospect of a renewal. If a player is surplus to requirements the club will not extend his contract; he will be released.

You're obviously misunderstanding me. I'm talking about players who are already out of contract. It may be that the club have not offered one, or it may be that the player didn't want to sign one. Either way, when a player is out of contract, his previous club can't compel him to sign a new contract. That would be madness. It's entirely up to the player which club he signs for next, assuming he has offers.

Which bit of that is giving you trouble?

 

[Blue Maniac]

You're obviously misunderstanding me. I'm talking about players who are already out of contract. It may be that the club have not offered one, or it may be that the player didn't want to sign one. Either way, when a player is out of contract, his previous club can't compel him to sign a new contract. That would be madness. It's entirely up to the player which club he signs for next, assuming he has offers.

Which bit of that is giving you trouble?

Obviously it's true that a player can't be compelled to commit to a new deal, but re-read your sentence from the other post: "It's not up to the club to 'release' anyone at the end of their contract, it's the player's decision." It appears to suggest that a player can continue to draw a wage after his contract expires without being I invited to do so by the club. I realise you know this to be nonsense, but te sentence was misleading :icon_bigg

 

[bocadillo]

You're obviously misunderstanding me. I'm talking about players who are already out of contract. It may be that the club have not offered one, or it may be that the player didn't want to sign one. Either way, when a player is out of contract, his previous club can't compel him to sign a new contract. That would be madness. It's entirely up to the player which club he signs for next, assuming he has offers.

Which bit of that is giving you trouble?

The term 'release' is valid, if only through useage. All League clubs circulate to all other League clubs a list of the players to whom they are not offering a further contract. The list also includes the names of players who have been offered a further contract but who have not accepted it. This list is known as the club's Release List - what is actually being released is the player's registration.

A list of players who are still under contract but 'available for transfer' (free or otherwise) is often addended thereto.

 

[indierich06]

Obviously it's true that a player can't be compelled to commit to a new deal, but re-read your sentence from the other post: "It's not up to the club to 'release' anyone at the end of their contract, it's the player's decision." It appears to suggest that a player can continue to draw a wage after his contract expires without being I invited to do so by the club. I realise you know this to be nonsense, but te sentence was misleading :icon_bigg

What? ...:icon_wink

 

[Blue Maniac]

What? ...:icon_wink

It's, er, Mongolian. For, erm... the aforementioned.