Harry Kane

[birchwoodgingerste]

So a 100m and a Mars Bar ?

And £1 change

 

[I'm Blue]

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.)

He may not have been great as of late but he’s still a pivotal part of the squad.
Even when not at his best he’s creating space for others cos he’s a threat and his movement drags defenders about.
He’d need replacing (if sold or swapped), but even ‘if’ we didn’t replace him he still has a big value, more than “wages off the books”.

 

[i8rags]

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

Eh, it’s 100 mill, cash or a combination of cash and player/s. Either way a guaranteed 100 m

 

[bluemoon32]

Eh, it’s 100 mill, cash or a combination of cash and player/s. Either way a guaranteed 100 m

Hope youre right mate, its being reported as otherwise

 

[Lavinda Past]

Not really the same, there was a lot more sentiment and respect there and they were also operating at a relatively high level. It didn't seem they wanted to go anywhere and we certainly wasn't going to be kicking out legends of our team because we thought they were past it, we just let things end respectfully with end of contract. We didn't need to sell Zaba or Silva to bring in Walker or Bernardo, other teams might have to but we don't which is why we are so successful.

If you want the best you have to pay them, no?

Absolutely... the problem is that if it doesn't work out, then you're stuck with Mangala, Mendy, Bony etc, on wages that other clubs can't or won't pay.

If you want the best, you go for Mbappe or Haaland (who both want to be at Real Madrid) or Messi (who wants to be at Barcelona)

If he comes to City, I think he'll do OK, but to be honest, I don't see Harry Kane as the £100m 'marquee' type of player that we should be going for. At the end of the day, I suspect that if he wasn't English, we wouldn't be going for him at much more than £50/60m

 

[Blue Coop]

Absolutely... the problem is that if it doesn't work out, then you're stuck with Mangala, Mendy, Bony etc, on wages that other clubs can't or won't pay.

If you want the best, you go for Mbappe or Haaland (who both want to be at Real Madrid) or Messi (who wants to be at Barcelona)

If he comes to City, I think he'll do OK, but to be honest, I don't see Harry Kane as the £100m 'marquee' type of player that we should be going for. At the end of the day, I suspect that if he wasn't English, we wouldn't be going for him at much more than £50/60m

PL apps 242
Goals 166 (top scorer most recently)
Assists 38 (top assister most recently)

He’s a £100m striker all day long.

 

[Father Paul]

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.

If we pay 150 million plus for Kane we deserve everything that is coming to us. The guy is on a downward spiral and is worth 85 maximum.

 

[Gumzy97]

 

[manimanc]

What's it got to do with this foghorn rag twat?

 

[ancoats]

£100 million is far to much for kane because of the injury hit the player can be
maybe a basic transfer fee of £50 million then the rest on targets, like playing time lets say 30 games a season adds £5 million and after the 5 years or so pay spurs a bonus fee

so if kane plays for city for 6 seasons and plays over 30 games each season then city pay spurs another £30 million