Harry Kane

blue b4 the moon said:
I'm in the no stack in the poll. Mainly due to thinking long-term with Haaland but, I suppose 3/4 years of Kane is also long-term in football. His game has developed and he is more involved in play rather than standing on the 6 yard box as some posts insinuate. Fitness shouldn't be too much of an issue as we rotate players unlike Spurs.

The positive of buying Kane is that no matter how much we pay Spurs it'll just go against the debt, not that they are any real threat to us but, I fucking still hate them for that walk out of Wembley in '81. The LC final was nice however, I may never get the chance to see us live beating them in a final. Time does not heal a good grudge.
Click to expand...
Hahah, i am glad i was only a glint in the milkmans eye then. Every blue of a certain vintage has that seared into their memory it seems. My personal gripe with spurs, if you could call it that, is how they spoke and reacted to us around 2011 when they saw us breezing past them as a club. Few spurs lads on here are ok but most of them are the epitomy of ignorant short sighted entitled so and so's who i feel rather happy about being all twisted up about their plight.

My lazy answer is "i'll trust Pep" regarding who we may or may not sign. I fully understand where you are coming from though certainly as i am partly the same.
 
ws01 said:
Ahhh, yes. The huge Nordic market. All 28 million of them.

Key to our ongoing success abroad.
Click to expand...

Haaland and Mbappe are pretty much the faces of Champions league abroad. And thats with one of them being at bloody Dortmund, and the other at a not traditionally big club.

Not that I think it is a deciding factor at all. Just pointing out
 
supercity88 said:
Yes clearly both of them are very selfish, staying at clubs despite having the chance to go to ones that are more likely to challenge for titles and pay them more money.

Kane is 29. It is now or never for him. For City it isn't business that makes sense in my opinion when Haaland is about and is so much younger. But there aren't many transfers the club has got wrong in recent seasons so I'll trust them to make the right choices.

Grealish I hope we sign.
Click to expand...
Kane isnt 29 hes 27 soon to turn 28 this summer
 
Both great players and would have either.
But 3 years of Kane injuries and mark ability.
Or 5 years ( possibly more ) world brand and with youth possibly less injuries.
It's a no brainer
 
waspish said:
27 is the new 24 because if you were 27 20 years ago you had a Mac if 3 years before going down hill Kane be too strike for 7/8 years
Click to expand...
I dont thinknots his age that people have a problem with.....however it's his reoccurring ankle problems and the lack of sell on value that go with his age ( amongst other things as well) ....couple that with haaland being considerably younger therefore having more longevity...more potential to be the next Kun....
 
spanishblue said:
Both great players and would have either.
But 3 years of Kane injuries and mark ability.
Or 5 years ( possibly more ) world brand and with youth possibly less injuries.
It's a no brainer
Click to expand...
Missing out the point that Kane is the better forward out of the 2 right now and the other hasn’t proved a thing playing in this league week in week out.
 
simon23 said:
I dont thinknots his age that people have a problem with.....however it's his reoccurring ankle problems and the lack of sell on value that go with his age ( amongst other things as well) ....couple that with haaland being considerably younger therefore having more longevity...more potential to be the next Kun....
Click to expand...

yeah he has thing is we won’t over play him if he has a slight twinge he won’t play
 
Coatigan said:
Haaland and Mbappe are pretty much the faces of Champions league abroad. And thats with one of them being at bloody Dortmund, and the other at a not traditionally big club.

Not that I think it is a deciding factor at all. Just pointing out
Click to expand...
Will they be playing on the 29th though
 
I do think this whole Haaland or Kane debate is a bit futile.

Given our transfer record and policies, it’s safe to assume we’ve gone after Haaland at some point (no smoke without fire too) and it didn’t work out if we’re now going for Kane.

I don’t know about you, but Kane as a ‘back up’ option is pretty fucking good to me. The guy is an animal, nearly every shot he takes is lethal and on target and he has a selfish, clinical streak in front of goal which - when you see Jesus passing it instead of shooting - is what we need.

We have this a lot in our fan base, where we seem to not like the idea of a new player or slate his abilities because we compare them to somebody else: Kane/Haaland, Rodri/Ferna, Jesus/Aguero, and up until this season Gundo wasn’t the most praised due to comparisons with Silva, KDB and Toure.

If we’re bringing in a new player, we do seem to get it right for the majority.
 
Hi guys,

1st post on the forum but thought I'd put my two penneth into the discussion.

I'm in two minds about Kane, like others too.

From a playing perspective I have no doubts whatsoever. He's world class. 22 goals and 13 assists this season tells you he is pretty much the complete package. He can hold the line and can drop deep to link the play. He can be selfish at times but I think we lack a player like that. Aguero is a selfish striker and that's no bad thing. Compare him to Jesus who can be very frustrating in front of goal and is sometimes too selfless if anything. Kane isn't, if he sees an opportunity to score he will go for it and it's why his numbers are so high because he is selfish and deadly when he gets a chance. Apart from Foden none of our players really have that goalscoring instinct. Put Harry Kane in our team and he would bag loads with the chances we create.

I think he'd be a great signing, would score loads, would assist loads, doesn't miss many penalties and he's hungry for trophies, so I've no doubt he'd be fully committed to win loads over the next 6 or 7 years. The fact he doesn't rely on pace also means if we used him correctly and don't overuse him like Spurs do, we could play him into his mid 30s and he'd still be good for us. The £100m+ fee would be paid back, no doubt.

I also think us signing Kane would just deflate the rest of the competition. A team that has won the double and potentially a treble adds the league's best striker to their team. They'd fear us even more than they do already.

The reason I am in two minds is because I just don't really like him and I'd prefer Haaland. I find him to be sneaky with the way he backs into defenders deliberately trying to off balance them and cause injury. He's also a diver and a bit of a cheat. I suppose if he's in your team you'd grow to love him but I just don't really like him.

I am also in the Haaland camp too. A younger, hungry player who really has got the world at his feet and will become a generational talent. Whether Haaland would stay for 10-15 years I don't know but for me he's the better fit for us, and the fact he used to go watching City makes me want him to sign him more. I'm sure City would prefer him too, but they will know if he's attainable or not and if we're going for Kane, then clearly he's not attainable or has been priced out of a move.
 
supercity88 said:
Yes clearly both of them are very selfish, staying at clubs despite having the chance to go to ones that are more likely to challenge for titles and pay them more money.

Kane is 29. It is now or never for him. For City it isn't business that makes sense in my opinion when Haaland is about and is so much younger. But there aren't many transfers the club has got wrong in recent seasons so I'll trust them to make the right choices.

Grealish I hope we sign.
Click to expand...

Kane is 27!!!
 
Oh right said:
Missing out the point that Kane is the better forward out of the 2 right now and the other hasn’t proved a thing playing in this league week in week out.
Click to expand...

Kane's numbers really arent That great. He has had 2 top seasons, one of them at 30 goals, the rest he has been around and below the 20 goal mark, and because of that one we take it for granted he is a 30+ goal striker. He is not. He's a 20 goal striker.

Which is still great. But grossly over exaggerated on here.
 
skillman said:
I do think this whole Haaland or Kane debate is a bit futile.

Given our transfer record and policies, it’s safe to assume we’ve gone after Haaland at some point (no smoke without fire too) and it didn’t work out if we’re now going for Kane.

I don’t know about you, but Kane as a ‘back up’ option is pretty fucking good to me. The guy is an animal, nearly every shot he takes is lethal and on target and he has a selfish, clinical streak in front of goal which - when you see Jesus passing it instead of shooting - is what we need.

We have this a lot in our fan base, where we seem to not like the idea of a new player or slate his abilities because we compare them to somebody else: Kane/Haaland, Rodri/Ferna, Jesus/Aguero, and up until this season Gundo wasn’t the most praised due to comparisons with Silva, KDB and Toure.

If we’re bringing in a new player, we do seem to get it right for the majority.
Click to expand...
Until they don't score a hat trick or misplace a pass or miss a chance.....then they're crap and need selling/swapping for the latest fifa21 "generational talent" lol
 
Watching the interview with Gary Neville, it’s clear Kane has a burning desire to elevate himself, we can offer him that platform. What’s not to like? He will be a beast for us.
 
This all feels like a well prescribed dance. Maybe the deal is already done with Spurs.
Kane (after last home game) agitated for a move. Limits buying options (English teams only) sets his price (i.e. City say anything over 100m =no deal
Levy calls him out for being a cnt and tying his hands.
Transfer window opens 9th, deal done 10th, Euros start 11th
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top