Harry Kane

simon23 said:
Haaland is much much more marketable than Kane especially in europe and and around the world.....this is the argument with payign for Messi - he could pay for himself in the future.
Click to expand...
I don't think he'll ever reach Messi status marketing wise. Zlatan maybe.
 
Well there's a surprise. MOTD opens with Liverpool, flag waving and YNWA as compulsory listening.
Tv off.
Sorry my phone is jumping around a lot tonight.
 
Last edited:
simon23 said:
Im not saying he would ( infact its very unlikely) but he is much more marketable than Kane is and they will want similar wages and could cost similar amounts to get
Click to expand...
PSG with Neymar and Mbappe are probably as marketable as you can get right now bar Messi and Ronaldo, yet they have been having to curb their spending lately because of those two signings.
 
Larry Stranger said:
Although Haaland seems more attractive because he's younger and will give you more years there is also wages you need to consider. He's 20 years old and even if you get a good transfer deal for him this year or wait for the buyout clause next summer, how much would he want?

Say that he wants a deal at £400k per week in his contract. Beside the potential of upsetting other squad members, that wage will only go up when Riola wants to negotiate a new one down the road. You could say he's worth it, but at what point does it become ridiculous money and have to decide to stick or twist to sell him to Barca or Madrid for example?

You can keep him and pay the wages, but how much times you will have to give him an improved contract seeing he's only 20? Also with FFP you could become what Barca or PSG are. A team with 1 or 2 superstars and the rest with average players because you can't afford to bulk up the rest of your squad.

I think Kane coming would mean a decent wage for him, but probably only would only need to give him an improved contract once. Then he'd be off the books at which point you can pay some of you up and coming players.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the reported wage demands one bit. I also don't believe the club wouldn't agree an appropriate wage with him that doesn't 'upset the wage structure' or other players.

Kane isn't coming to play for fuck all. he will want a good bit more than he is on now at Spurs, and that is already pretty significant. A lot higher than haaland is on at Dortmund.

There is a lot of selective believing what suits to fit the preference. Haaland 'demanding 500k a week', 'wanting to leave within 2 years of arriving', 'having an ego and not fitting in' etc etc. While harry kane apparently the model has no professional, gives an interview talking about his personal goals and future away from the club, while they still had a final to play for a trophy, and werent out of the top4 race, yeah no ego there, no wage demands at all etc etc.

They are completely comparable. Haaland already has better numbers. Better attributes too. Kane has great attributes himself, and arguably consistency. Haaland is younger with more potential, Kane is proven in the league. Both would cost north of 120m, both would be on high wages relative to that, both would presumably want to come here, both want to win, both have egos.

The club will go for one, maybe because they outright prefer that player, maybe because they feel it is easier to get them, maybe a bit of both.

A week ago, we were all Sure that was Haaland. Now, it seems like it is Kane. I'm not completely convinced it is, and I can't help thinking this will shift and change back and forth as the window opens and progresses, and bits of informaton trickle through in segments at various points. But if i'm wrong, and we sign Kane before the euros as seems to be the suggestion, great, I'll know the club lust have been damn determined on it to make that happen.
 
sir baconface said:
So two players, one aged 25 and the other 30, otherwise identical in ability, injury record, etc have exactly he same purchase price? Is that what you’re saying?
Click to expand...
Nope. Seems like you’re not understanding the original answer to the post about resale value not taken into account from a financial standpoint. So I think you’re talking on cross purposes here pal.

This is my take on it from a dimwits (mine not yours btw) perspective. If I own a business & come to sell it, I have tangible assets such as my fleet of cars. You can put a value on that from an accounting perspective.

If I have a great brand name with a great reputation, that’s an intangible asset which is valuable, but can’t be accounted for from a value perspective. As the seller of a business, I will have my own value for my intangible assets.
(I only know this as my brother has recently sold his business

Players are intangible assets.

Honestly dude, I think you’ve totally misunderstood the whole point of the post you originally questioned.

What you’ve just asked me has no relevance to it whatsoever.
———————————-
But to answer your question, nope that’s not what I’m saying. It’s purely down to what the selling club will accept, so nothing to do with age. For example, would a debt ridden club who was doing a fire sale to save them from going out of business demand the same amount of money than say City would for a player of similar ability? Or what if you’re buying a player from Norway instead of a player with the same ability from a Prem team. Or what if a player only has 1 year left on his contract vs a player with 5 years on his contract, or a player with a buyout clause vs a player without a buyout etc etc
 
OccupiedPalestineBlues said:
Ther’s never any sell on at the end of a term of engagement you thick twat.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure anyone has actually suggested otherwise.

You’re argument seems to be that players have zero sell on value once their contract expires which is stating the obvious.

The initial point was about potential resale value. We sign a 22 year old for £100 million on a 5 year deal and he produces the goods in the first two seasons, there’s a very good chance that his market value will increase or at the very least, hold value.

We sign a 28 year old in the same circumstance and his market value will probably decrease due to his age.
 
Coatigan said:
I don't believe the reported wage demands one bit. I also don't believe the club wouldn't agree an appropriate wage with him that doesn't 'upset the wage structure' or other players.

Kane isn't coming to play for fuck all. he will want a good bit more than he is on now at Spurs, and that is already pretty significant. A lot higher than haaland is on at Dortmund.

There is a lot of selective believing what suits to fit the preference. Haaland 'demanding 500k a week', 'wanting to leave within 2 years of arriving', 'having an ego and not fitting in' etc etc. While harry kane apparently the model has no professional, gives an interview talking about his personal goals and future away from the club, while they still had a final to play for a trophy, and werent out of the top4 race, yeah no ego there, no wage demands at all etc etc.

They are completely comparable. Haaland already has better numbers. Better attributes too. Kane has great attributes himself, and arguably consistency. Haaland is younger with more potential, Kane is proven in the league. Both would cost north of 120m, both would be on high wages relative to that, both would presumably want to come here, both want to win, both have egos.

The club will go for one, maybe because they outright prefer that player, maybe because they feel it is easier to get them, maybe a bit of both.

A week ago, we were all Sure that was Haaland. Now, it seems like it is Kane. I'm not completely convinced it is, and I can't help thinking this will shift and change back and forth as the window opens and progresses, and bits of informaton trickle through in segments at various points. But if i'm wrong, and we sign Kane before the euros as seems to be the suggestion, great, I'll know the club lust have been damn determined on it to make that happen.
Click to expand...
Yes we don't know how much Haaland would want. If he were to come on modest wages I'd be all for it. However, if he were to go onto becoming the best striker in the world in a few years like everyone is assuming he will, then I'd assume he'd want to be paid like one too. That's why you associate yourself with Riola because he'll get you the best deal. I don't know any of his clients that are as good as he that want modest wages, but you never know.
 
daztrueblue91 said:
I’m not sure anyone has actually suggested otherwise.

You’re argument seems to be that players have zero sell on value once their contract expires which is stating the obvious.

The initial point was about potential resale value. We sign a 22 year old for £100 million on a 5 year deal and he produces the goods in the first two seasons, there’s a very good chance that his market value will increase or at the very least, hold value.

We sign a 28 year old in the same circumstance and his market value will probably decrease due to his age.
Click to expand...
He’s talking from a business perspective & what’s in the accounts from a ‘resale’standpoint, so I think, with my little knowledge of business, that you are both correct as you’re both talking about 2 different things.

So I think you’re both correct now you’ve put it like that :)
 
daztrueblue91 said:
I’m not sure anyone has actually suggested otherwise.

You’re argument seems to be that players have zero sell on value once their contract expires which is stating the obvious.

The initial point was about potential resale value. We sign a 22 year old for £100 million on a 5 year deal and he produces the goods in the first two seasons, there’s a very good chance that his market value will increase or at the very least, hold value.

We sign a 28 year old in the same circumstance and his market value will probably decrease due to his age.
Click to expand...
In a nutshell. Don't you just love semantics and/or pedantry?
 
Maly said:
Nope. Seems like you’re not understanding the original answer to the post about resale value not taken into account from a financial standpoint. So I think you’re talking on cross purposes here pal.

This is my take on it from a dimwits (mine not yours btw) perspective. If I own a business & come to sell it, I have tangible assets such as my fleet of cars. You can put a value on that from an accounting perspective.

If I have a great brand name with a great reputation, that’s an intangible asset which is valuable, but can’t be accounted for from a value perspective. As the seller of a business, I will have my own value for my intangible assets.
(I only know this as my brother has recently sold his business

Players are intangible assets.

Honestly dude, I think you’ve totally misunderstood the whole point of the post you originally questioned.

What you’ve just asked me has no relevance to it whatsoever.
———————————-
But to answer your question, nope that’s not what I’m saying. It’s purely down to what the selling club will accept, so nothing to do with age. For example, would a debt ridden club who was doing a fire sale to save them from going out of business demand the same amount of money than say City would for a player of similar ability? Or what if you’re buying a player from Norway instead of a player with the same ability from a Prem team. Or what if a player only has 1 year left on his contract vs a player with 5 years on his contract, or a player with a buyout clause vs a player without a buyout etc etc
Click to expand...
We’re going In circles, mate. No disrespect but that’s enough for one day. Good night :)
 
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