Harry Kane

[Grealish’s Shinpads]

Which is also why we won’t spend what Levy would want for Kane... probably

Unrelated to my point.

FWIW I don’t think we will sign him because we can get more years out of Haaland

 

[waspish]

i would say quite often when you look at the average age of the players we buy.

bottom line apart from sane who wanted to go we do not sell our best players!

 

[Deleted member 87819]

bottom line apart from sane who wanted to go we do not sell our best players!

Well, we didn’t sell Aguero, but we also didn’t keep him

 

[waspish]

Well, we didn’t sell Aguero, but we also didn’t keep him

Like Silva yaya and Kompany don’t understand the point you are making?!

 

[Deleted member 87819]

Like Silva yaya and Kompany don’t understand the point you are making?!

Their choice

 

[Phil1]

Their choice

In fairness so was Aguero. He could have stayed if he wanted just as Silva and Kompany could have had they wanted.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

but we also generally dont buy older players especially ones that are injured often.

bottom line apart from sane who wanted to go we do not sell our best players!,

 

[waspish]

Their choice

It’s Sergio choice the offer we made him of course won’t be great because of his injuries and age. Think the injury he has though he won’t be playing much football hope I’m wrong...

 

[BillyShears]

I can only speak for myself but I'm not negative when it comes to potentially signing him.
Like I posted on this thread a month ago, he's not my first choice but I wouldn't be unhappy if he came.
I doubt many of those who are averse to him coming here are basing it on ability, at least I'd hope not because he has it in spades.
I'd rather we went all in on Haaland but have no problem with anyone preferring Kane.

I think you can probably just about make the argument that Kane is the better short term signing. Even with his injury record. I do think that people are a little obsessed with the idea that City would never sign someone of his age for a large fee. Khaldoon said last summer something along lines of 'whilst the strategy will always remain to sign young players, if opportunities appear which we feel we could take advantage of, we'd explore them'. Kane definitely falls into that bracket IMO.

A little bit like Sterling, because of his status within the England set up he's a huge commercial draw anyway, and if he came here he'd start winning big trophies too which would only enhance that reputation and value. I'm like you in that I'd definitely prefer Haaland both for the footballing side and also because I think that signing him has cultural significance for the club because of his connections to us and the fact he seems to support us. But if for whatever reason Haaland can't or won't happen, then Kane is comfortably my second pick.

 

[Grealish’s Shinpads]

Resale value isn’t as prominent in the equation as it is made out to be. Whoever we sign will be signed with the view that they will stay with us for their prime years.

There are no steps up from us, only sideway steps to other top clubs like Barca, Real, PSG, etc. It’s silly to think that we would be looking to sell Haaland after 3/4 years. The fact that Haaland will be worth more than Kane in 3/4 years’ time is irrelevant. We would only sell Haaland after 3/4 years if he wanted to leave and take a sideways step (like Sane) or if we wanted to get rid because he wasn’t up to scratch.

We are not a selling club.

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

For me he’s a much better fit then haaland and would give us 4 years potentially of being world class.

Haaland to me, looks great at scoring and holding the ball up, but in terms of pressing and working for the team I don’t think he does it that well. Kane does.

 

[01cravend]

i would say quite often when you look at the average age of the players we buy.

We paid 60mil for Mahrez at the same age Kane is now.

And we've paid prices for a lot of our younger players(Bernie, Sterling, Laporte, Dias, Rodri) where if we were to sell them, there would be reasons behind it that have caused their value to decrease(injuries, not good enough, running down contracts ect). Sane injured for a year and in last year of contract so we sold an 80mil player for half that. We don't buy first team quality players with the view to sell, we tend to buy them younger so we get longer out of their quality.

 

[Phil1]

For me he’s a much better fit then haaland and would give us 4 years potentially of being world class.

Haaland to me, looks great at scoring and holding the ball up, but in terms of pressing and working for the team I don’t think he does it that well. Kane does.

Kane is a great player but I wouldn't say pressing is one of his best attributes. Whenever I watch him it seems he's always playing on the shoulder of the last defender and relies on his movement to get himself into positions that he can score from.
I rarely see him busting a gut, though I'm sure that's a lot to do with how Spurs and England set up.
Not saying he can't because he most definitely could if it was asked of him but personally haven't seen much evidence that points to him being better than Haaland at it.

 

[Deleted member 87819]

I do think that people are a little obsessed with the idea that City would never sign someone of his age for a large fee. Khaldoon said last summer something along lines of 'whilst the strategy will always remain to sign young players, if opportunities appear which we feel we could take advantage of, we'd explore them'. Kane definitely falls into that bracket IMO.

The point I am making is not that we wouldn’t pay Kane’s fee because he’s old and has an injury record, but because it’s a dead end investment too large for “just” the team’s benefit. He would score the goals whenever he would be fit for sure, but for the money being talked about, I think the club would probably settle for someone cheaper who maybe wouldn’t score as many goals but would do the job well enough. The club is looking to expand it’s global brand and reach, Kane wouldn’t help with that. I think it’s not hard to guess who Khaldoon was talking about with that quote. Now of course I could be wrong. We’ll see

I have already used here the PSG example. Their third biggest signing of all time cost about the same as our biggest. They went overboard for their top two: Neymar, who was already a massive global superstar, and then for young Mbappe, who they identified as a superstar in the making worth the money he would take (just like we did, by the way). Those signings completely changed PSG’s global brand. They have yet to win the UCL, which is the main sporting goal, but the money spent on those two totally paid off. And of course, they also wanted/want Messi.. who would continue that trend...

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

We paid 60mil for Mahrez at the same age Kane is now.

And we've paid prices for a lot of our younger players(Bernie, Sterling, Laporte, Dias, Rodri) where if we were to sell them, there would be reasons behind it that have caused their value to decrease(injuries, not good enough, running down contracts ect). Sane injured for a year and in last year of contract so we sold an 80mil player for half that. We don't buy first team quality players with the view to sell, we tend to buy them younger so we get longer out of their quality.

well perhaps i was wrong on the resale value thing, but right about the long term value, which is important for the club from a financial point of view. Kane doesnt have that much long term value when you consider what he would cost, ie roughly twice what Mahrez cost us and the fact that he is only going to get more injured as he gets older. I think we will go for a younger player.

 

[Deleted member 87819]

For me he’s a much better fit then haaland and would give us 4 years potentially of being world class.

Haaland to me, looks great at scoring and holding the ball up, but in terms of pressing and working for the team I don’t think he does it that well. Kane does.

The lie about Haaland’s pressing is as nonsensical as the one about his first touch. People repeat it without ever watching him and some start believing it.

Here’s an analysis of his pressing from 11 months ago: https://talksport.com/football/7077...rtmund-tactics-manchester-united-real-madrid/

It’s an excellent read. Please check it outS I could send other articles but I’ll leave it at that one unless you want more. Now keep in mind that he has actually seriously improved since that article was written.

 

[blueparrot]

Resale value isn’t as prominent in the equation as it is made out to be. Whoever we sign will be signed with the view that they will stay with us for their prime years.

There are no steps up from us, only sideway steps to other top clubs like Barca, Real, PSG, etc. It’s silly to think that we would be looking to sell Haaland after 3/4 years. The fact that Haaland will be worth more than Kane in 3/4 years’ time is irrelevant. We would only sell Haaland after 3/4 years if he wanted to leave and take a sideways step (like Sane) or if we wanted to get rid because he wasn’t up to scratch.

We are not a selling club.

For me it isn’t resale value, it’s whether we would need to spend similar again in 4 years. I think Haaland and Kane would both cost between £100-£120 mill. With Haaland you would hope to get 10 years maybe 12 from that, or if he left get our money back to replace him. With Kane even if we got 5 years we would need to be spending well over£100 mill maybe nearer 200 in 5 years to get a similar level player.
I f we can’t get Haaland, or though more unlikely Mbappe and the club decide on Kane, I have no problem at all with that,great. Just my opinion I have doubts the club would do it, if they do though I all good with that too.

 

[Cityfan]

Resale value isn’t as prominent in the equation as it is made out to be. Whoever we sign will be signed with the view that they will stay with us for their prime years.

There are no steps up from us, only sideway steps to other top clubs like Barca, Real, PSG, etc. It’s silly to think that we would be looking to sell Haaland after 3/4 years. The fact that Haaland will be worth more than Kane in 3/4 years’ time is irrelevant. We would only sell Haaland after 3/4 years if he wanted to leave and take a sideways step (like Sane) or if we wanted to get rid because he wasn’t up to scratch.

We are not a selling club.

I completely agree with the sentiment . Our aim is to make money from players through their footballing ability and hence our sporting achievements as we have with Kompany Silva Aguero etc. However I think we have to acknowledge with Haaland his agent does tend to have his clients move fairly frequently to maximise their profitability and that his resale may be of importance to us.

 

[BillyShears]

The point I am making is not that we wouldn’t pay Kane’s fee because he’s old and has an injury record, but because it’s a dead end investment too large for “just” the team’s benefit. He would score the goals whenever he would be fit for sure, but for the money being talked about, I think the club would probably settle for someone cheaper who maybe wouldn’t score as many goals but would do the job well enough. The club is looking to expand it’s global brand and reach, Kane wouldn’t help with that. I think it’s not hard to guess who Khaldoon was talking about with that quote. Now of course I could be wrong. We’ll see

I don't agree. We don't ever really buy to sell at a first team level. We minimise risks by signing young players, and optimise value. But it isn't a religion where we have to be dogmatic. Signing a proven world class player at 28/29, no matter how expensive, isn't a problem for the right player IMO. Notwithstanding that I reckon City want a marquee player for the 9 position. The likes of Patson Daka et al don't fit that bill, so I suspect that if we end up having to pay a big fee for Kane, we'll do it no problem.

For the record when we're talking about a big fee, for me we're talking 100/120 million pounds.

 

[Saddleworth2]

For me it isn’t resale value, it’s whether we would need to spend similar again in 4 years. I think Haaland and Kane would both cost between £100-£120 mill. With Haaland you would hope to get 10 years maybe 12 from that, or if he left get our money back to replace him. With Kane even if we got 5 years we would need to be spending well over£100 mill maybe nearer 200 in 5 years to get a similar level player.
I f we can’t get Haaland, or though more unlikely Mbappe and the club decide on Kane, I have no problem at all with that,great. Just my opinion I have doubts the club would do it, if they do though I all good with that too.

I would feel nervous signing an ageing forward with wonky ankles for that type of money. If he comes because we cant get the other two, fair enough, but my question is why cant we get one of the other two. Its time we took our world presence to the next level and Kane wont do that.