Harry Kane

theone91 said:
Yeah one to be payed back over 20 years, like I said along with the stadium debt which is to be payed back over 30 years, these pale in comparison to the revenue of the club once stadium re opens. Tottenham are not a club in financial crisis that needs to sell all their best players. The players that leave this summer will be the deadwood that are not part of Nunos plans.
Click to expand...
If Tottenham are so rich, why don’t they pay the loans back?
 
If it happens maybe some sort of swap deal. No way City pay over 100 in the present climate in my view. They may eye our centre Half's perhaps.
 
theone91 said:
Yeah one to be payed back over 20 years, like I said along with the stadium debt which is to be payed back over 30 years, these pale in comparison to the revenue of the club once stadium re opens. Tottenham are not a club in financial crisis that needs to sell all their best players. The players that leave this summer will be the deadwood that are not part of Nunos plans.
Click to expand...
With all due respect your club is allergic to trophies and Kane knows this as much as anyone else. Money and trophies talk and he wants out. Do you really want a disgruntled player in the team, just to spite him and City?
 
theone91 said:
Yeah one to be payed back over 20 years, like I said along with the stadium debt which is to be payed back over 30 years, these pale in comparison to the revenue of the club once stadium re opens. Tottenham are not a club in financial crisis that needs to sell all their best players. The players that leave this summer will be the deadwood that are not part of Nunos plans.
Click to expand...
The appointment of Nuno should give you some indication of Levy's ambitions for the club - maximising achievement on a tight budget. It's a shrewd appointment and I think he'll do well, but selling a 28 yr old Kane for £100m plus fits very much within that plan as does getting rid of the dead wood. Without Kane you still have a solid unit with Son providing the pace/threat that Traore did at wolves, so will (imho) manage to Cement a top 3-4 place to pay for the stadium with minimal outlay on players. Bale will either get you a cup or be a financial millstone dependent upon injuries and how he responds to Nuno.As a club you have the opposite problem to Kane- you do well in the big games, but tend to get your arse handed to you by shite.
 
simon23 said:
My argument is despite Kane being a great goal scorer I dont think he is the right fit for us..I dont believe he pushes us forward enough
Click to expand...
Until Kane is signed and playing no one can make that assertation. You seem entrenched in a view that is very presumptuous.

Kane could be great or he could be an expensive flop.
 
wolviedinho said:
Exactly. The pros & cons are clear but the truth is that not 1 person knows how this will pan out.
Click to expand...
Try telling that to his fan boys, Arry is the greatest striker that ever lived and we should be lauding him before he even kicks a ball.
 
simon23 said:
Haaland is available at a price.....he setup one of their goals so we didnt shut him down and he bullied ruben off the ball...how many strikers will do that?....but its more than about one game as Kanes record against us aint great either.
Kane hasnt got a great record against the top teams thats there in stats as well......poor against 4 of the top 6 (exceptions are Arsenal and Leicester)...people keep making an excuse that he is palying for spurs (they arent a good team apparently) yet in the last 5 games vs spurs we have won 3 and lost 2 (2020-2021) - kane didnt score any either btw.

Haaland is the fastest and youngest player to reach 20 champions league goals (in just 14 CL games)....kane took 24 games to do this as a comparrison

But again its not just about the stats or one off games..

I beleive Haaland is more mobile and would fit into a fluid front 3...whereas Kane isnt/cant..yes he drops deep and links play very well (Haaland also can do this) but I think Kane makes us more rigid in attack

He has less pace than haaland and though we dont play on the break that much there are times its useful...Kane aint quick and looks like he is getting slower. think about the possibiility of Haaland with Edersons quick releases/long passes. Haaland is also clearly the more physically stonger player as well

Kanes injury record around his ankles is a concern .......that aint getting better and it reoccurs most seasons at some point - yes we maybe able to rest him....but it may also be forced on us at some point.

As ive said, Kane will score lots of goals for us but in the moments that count, the one off games Id rather have Haaland.....or even wait a year (though that aint going to happen unless levy really digs his heels in and insists on pricing him out of a move)
Click to expand...
There is no indication that he is "available at a price". All indications are that he stays at Dortmund. The rest of the post is thus irrelevant - akin to arguing who would win an India vs Pakistan cricket match.

That said, on purely theoretical grounds: Haaland had a couple of moments in two legs against us - that's not a material influence. Jude Bellingham was way more of a threat and we're not in for him, let alone at the silly money tags being attached to Haaland.

Dont know what you mean by Kane making us more rigid - he has shown himself to be a versatile playmaker and a goalscorer in a pretty average Spurs side.

The rest is your opinion - and who is better in one-off games is pure speculation. We have little if any evidence as to how Haaland handles major games and zero evidence of how he will adapt to the Premier League.
 
Last edited:
lasereyes said:
There is no indication that he is "available at a price". All indications are that he stays at Dortmund. The rest of the post is thus irrelevant - akin to arguing who would win an India vs Pakistan cricket match.

That said, on purely theoretical grounds: Haaland had a couple of moments in two legs against us - that's not a material influence. Jude Bellingham was way more of a threat and we're not in for him, let alone at the silly money tags being attached to Haaland.

Dont know what you mean by Kane making us more rigid - he has shown himself to be a versatile playmaker and a goalscorer in a pretty average Spurs side.

The rest is your opinion - and who is better in one-off games is pure speculation. We have little if any evidence as to how Haaland handles major games and zero evidence of how he will adapt to the Premier League.
Click to expand...
I've said it a few times, but I had zero rooting interest in the Euros and Kane impressed the hell out of me. Obviously not the same player but he KIND OF reminded me of Tevez in his approach. He was a bulldog dropping back and pressing. Not selfish on the ball as striker.

I think if you look at all angles, Haaland is the better option if he works out. You get production and then he'll eventually want to move on. You recoup some of the fee and that's fine and dandy. He should be fine as a signing but he's in a different league and who knows if the physicality or pressure of the EPL gets to him. I'd venture to say no but it isn't guaranteed.

Kane has wrecked shit in the league for years now. He's a known commodity. His floor is higher on the pitch but financially you aren't likely to recoup any sort of fee when he's past it.
 
I'm warming to the idea we leave both players where they are so the fans can wank themselves silly over winning the 'we kept our best players nananananana' trophy whilst we crack on with the serious business of winning most competitions we enter.
I'm sure Jack and Harry will be content with keeping the loyal fan bases happy and winning fuck all for the rest of their careers because that's what all footballers want at the end of the day, to be loved by Sid from Solihull and that weird **** with 91 in his name from I guess his mums basement.

Sign Ings and we are good to go.
 
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