My feeling on the situation is that the player signed a contract for Tottenham and thus agreed to fulfull his end of that contract, which obliges him to play for Tottenham for the duration of that contract. If another club wants the player, they may submit a bid to Tottenham. If the bid is deemed acceptable, Spurs may give Modric the opportunity to discuss personal terms with the bidding club.

The challenge Spurs face is that Modric is trying to escape his contract. He desperately wants to leave and is pressuring Spurs to accept a bid from Chelsea to allow him to move to south London. He is Spurs' best midfielder, one of the best central midfield playmakers around. He is worth a heck of a lot of money to the club and it's fans, more than what Chelsea currently seem prepared to offer.

The scenario is clear from Tottenham's end: Modric has a value to the team/company; If Chelsea meet that value, then Spurs will allow the player to discuss personal terms with Chelsea.

But Spurs have not, at least publicly, stated what they consider to be fair value for Modric, and there is a reason for this, and it is detrimental to the ambitions of the player. There have not been many transfers so far this summer. Clubs in general seem really unsure about value in the market, and what players are going for seems massively inflated even vis-a-vis theoretical "win-it-all" profit potential from a signing, and this can be considered detrimental to Modric. He is at the whims of a transfer market which has not determined price borders, and in this economic environment a transfer is really difficult to work out.

In this inflated market, one precedent has perhaps been set. A player who lets his contract run down gains more transfer bargaining power, and has more power to force a move. Young did this with Aston Villa, forcing a move to Man Utd. Nasri is attempting this at Arsenal, trying to gain a move away from the Emirates. In these situations, the selling club has less wiggle room - it risks losing the player for nothing in the near future - and so a transfer price is easier to determine.

Modric, however, is nowhere near his contract expiry and so has little power. He relies on the uncertain market.

To end, just for fun, I will add what I would do if I were Spurs' transfer negotiator. If I figured that Modric will be leaving but that Chelsea are not offering what I deem him to be worth, I'd propose a swap deal that will save Chelsea money but bring to Spurs massive potential value. Increased risk for Spurs but, for me, worth it. How about this?

Luka Modric for Daniel Sturridge + Gael Kakuta or Josh McEachran + Cash

Chelsea get by far the better addition of talent over the next two seasons, but Spurs get potentially aggregate better talent in the long-term. Daniel Sturridge can score goals. He must improve his broader passing, defensive and off-the-ball game, but he scores - something none of Spurs's forwards can do. While Gael Kakuta is the beholder of brilliant unrefined talent. He may be a bust, but could easily turn out to be a great attacking central midfielder, perhaps a replacement for Modric.