I confess that I have kept off this particular thread for about a week now because RK appeared to be gone, only he hasn't, so I came back to find out why and I am probably more confused now than I was a week ago. There appears to have been a lot of shenanigans going on (not unusual in so-called 'professional' football - if ever there was a misnomer it is this). So my understanding is this: (please edit where I have got this wrong)
1. RK's agent was in negotiations with Southampton and Everton appear to have tapped up this agent;
2. Said agent, that had been in final negotiations with Les Reed, is fired by RK and new agent appointed by RK who then tries to leverage a better contract on the back of the illicit discussions with Everton;
3. Les tells the new agent the previous negotiated new contract stands;
4. Everton now formally approach Saints - Les 'lets loose the dogs of war' and advises Everton that its in their interests to hand over 5M because if they don't - there is the small matter of 'tapping up' our manager. 'Tail between legs' Everton agree to this and RK now finds himself trying to negotiate a contract with a club that has been shown to have acted as dishonourably has he and are probably less than happy to find themselves in this situation.
Have I got this right or am I missing something out? If correct - the bit I don't fully understand is why fire the agent? Either he was ethical and did not want to damage his relationship with Saints - possible but unlikely given there appears to be no ethical behaviour in 'professional' football. Or, this was a means of trying to mitigate any linkage to RK over the tapping up - in which case the first agent is expecting a commission fee from the other agents fee for his troubles when RK signs for Everton. For me, the latter seems more plausible.
I think the first agent was telling Everton to go away as Rk had agreed to stay at SFC, RK found out and got rid of the first agent, as he was angry that the agent had not informed him of Everton's approach.
