Harry Kane

[citizen_maine]

Sterling is worth £50m-£60m minimum.
I’d be expecting more like £70m+
So that’s still £150m-£160m minimum.
Not sure why people think throwing a player in somehow brings the cost down.

particularly when we'd need to replace them

 

[Bluesince88]

Sterling is worth £50m-£60m minimum.
I’d be expecting more like £70m+
So that’s still £150m-£160m minimum.
Not sure why people think throwing a player in somehow brings the cost down.

It brings the actual money being paid down in a sense doesn’t it. Nobody would pay that for Sterling however using it in a transfer means we don’t have to finance 50 plus million more. Sterling leaves, his high wages are gone and we haven’t had to front more money. There’s the downside of what you don’t get back for him but like I say I’d be gobsmacked anybody paid that kind of cash for him if he decided to leave tomorrow

 

[Bluesince88]

particularly when we'd need to replace them

Would we? Mahrez, Foden, Bernardo if he stayed with Jesus maybe getting a bit of time wide too. More game time for players meaning Bernardo may be a bit happier. It’s not an area of the pitch if we lost someone I think we’d need to invest heavily on

 

[Bobby Heaton Moor]

Have two rags in my college WhatsApp group ranting about how Levy would never sell Kane. I'm sure if news came through of a rags bid, they'd be just as objective! :)

 

[I'm Blue]

It brings the actual money being paid down in a sense doesn’t it. Nobody would pay that for Sterling however using it in a transfer means we don’t have to finance 50 plus million more. Sterling leaves, his high wages are gone and we haven’t had to front more money. There’s the downside of what you don’t get back for him but like I say I’d be gobsmacked anybody paid that kind of cash for him if he decided to leave tomorrow

He or anyone else would still need replacing and if you want a better player then he’s gonna cost.
All it does is stop pundits and press saying we payed ‘x’ amount for a player, which will still be criticised regardless.
We’d still end up paying £150m+ as an example.

 

[bluemoon32]

100m plus player(s)......fcuking hell

 

[birchwoodgingerste]

Love how people are just throwing in a Player who is arguably worth more than Kane as a sweetener.

100 and mendy

 

[Bernard20]

He or anyone else would still need replacing and if you want a better player then he’s gonna cost.
All it does is stop pundits and press saying we payed ‘x’ amount for a player, which will still be criticised regardless.
We’d still end up paying £150m+ as an example.

Kane in, Sterling out, does not mean Sterling needs replacing… we have Foden, Jesus, Bernardo, Mahrez! If Sterling were to be sold, he doesn’t need replacing - we have enough in the squad to cope! (Id hope we get in Grealish, but that isn’t necessary to replace Sterling.)

 

[bluemoon32]

100 and mendy

So a 100m and a Mars Bar ?

 

[Withnail]

Interesting to see how this develops and how much we are prepared to bid before we look elsewhere. Certainly don't want to lose Laporte or Jesus and I am not sure Sterling would go to Spurs. I would offer Ake plus £70m which may be of interest to Spurs.

Personally, I would prefer Haaland, but it looks like Pep wants Kane.