Harry Kane

J.P said:
Spurs fan here. Doubt I’m very welcome but thought I’d risk posting in the effort to give some information from what we are hearing from the Spurs side of things.



I’m sure a lot of you are as bored as us with how long this whole thing is dragging out, and how each day a new journalist pops up claiming that ‘Kane wants to join Man City’ is somehow breaking news. Everyone has known that since the Neville interview on the golf course.



I’m guessing you have your own set of ‘itks’ like all clubs, and some are complete WUMs, while some are very credible. Well the most credible Spurs itks have all been fairly consistent on this whole saga:



  • Kane wants to leave and only wants City
  • The whole thing has been a mess from the very beginning due to the incompetence of his agent and Brother Charlie
  • Charlie got completely ahead of himself providing completely fabricated information to City of how much it would take to get Harry out of Tottenham
  • It’s widely accepted by both clubs, agents and journalists that Charlie is well out of his depth and if anything, been a complete hindrance to any deal being completed. His wedding stunt made the City side furious, and just plain baffled the Spurs side.
  • Tottenham ONLY WANT A CASH DEAL. As you can imagine there are multiple reasons to this. 1) the players City put forward are very unlikely to want to join Spurs in the first palace. 2) on the off chance they do, their wages would have to be matched or even improved to join Spurs, which would then cause a big issue with certain players in our current squad demanding parity. 3) in ‘swap deals’ the 2 clubs often have very different views on the value of players. 4) Tottenham have a new DOF who has complete control of transfers (with the exception of Kane) and is working to a plan with a set list of players, and there are no City players on that list.
  • So far, City have not offered a straight cash deal. There have only been proposals and player exchanges plus cash, which have been dismissed out of hand for reasons stated above.
  • The last 48 hours meetings between spurs and Harry’s team has resulted in amicable discussions. Harry obviously reaffirmed his desire to play for City and Pep. However the club made their stance very clear, he should be prepared to stay unless City stump up an acceptable cash only amount. His team understand this.
  • New contract very unlikely unless specific clauses added (doesn’t take a genius to work out what they would be - see Grealish)
  • Unlikely to be anymore public stunts from Harry after the late show to preseason. The public backlash again was something half-wit Charlie didn’t anticipate. Even the FA weren’t impressed after sponsors were getting agitated.
  • Good news for us all, some are saying that there has been a deadline put on all of this. City have to come up with the cash by the 23/24th to allow Spurs a week to do their business.
  • At the moment City aren’t expected to do that unless they can sell first.
  • Everyone has a different opinion of what the magic number is.


Another FYI in terms of Spurs spending and transfer funds.



  • We have currently only spent £21M. The CB Romero deal is a loan with option to buy for £42M next summer. Some media seem to be reporting we have spent loads already, don’t get sucked into that narrative.
  • Spurs have reduced our wage bill by around 500k pw with our outgoings of Bale, Alderweireld, Lamela, Rose, Vinicius, Hart, Foyth.
  • There are also rumours that we are sitting on an announcement (maybe stadium naming rights) that would see us have more money to spend that people would expect. Obviously the reason for delaying any announcement like that is to help negotiating for our incomings.


Take it all with a pinch of salt obviously like all ‘itk’ information (I’m sure a lot of you will dismiss it all). None of it is from me so don’t shoot the messenger. I just thought some of you would want to hear both sides of coin.
Click to expand...
good post.
Spurs are right to dig their heels in. nobody forced Kane to sign that deal.
keep us posted.
 
Bill said:
good post.
Spurs are right to dig their heels in. nobody forced Kane to sign that deal.
keep us posted.
Click to expand...
True but if a valued player wants to leave you don’t take the piss with your valuation. City are not here to fiananxe Spurs transfer kitty. If they put a realistic valuation around £100million then a deal would get struck in all probability.
 
Bill said:
why should they ? define Realistic.
Click to expand...
Age old adage what the ‘buyer is prepared to pay’ for a player desperate to leave. I would say given his age, only wants City, and other characteristics of past injury etc. £100 million is a fair sum and going off what Lukaku is being acquired for.
 
LesBleuMiserable said:
True but if a valued player wants to leave you don’t take the piss with your valuation. City are not here to fiananxe Spurs transfer kitty. If they put a realistic valuation around £100million then a deal would get struck in all probability.
Click to expand...

But to them, with 3 years on his contract to run and them hoping they can sort it out that he stays, why would they sell for £100m when he's worth more to them than that. They aren't going to just bend over, lube up and present to us.

Lukaku is going for near £100m and Kane is a better player.
 
LesBleuMiserable said:
Age old adage what the ‘buyer is prepared to pay’ for a player desperate to leave. I would say given his age, only wants City, and other characteristics of past injury etc. £100 million is a fair sum and going off what Lukaku is being acquired for.
Click to expand...

That's like going into an Aston Martin dealer and saying I know you want to sell that car, so I'm going to offer below what you actually want to sell it for because you need to get rid of it. It doesn't work like that.

To add to this, Spurs clearly don't want to sell either so that quote doesn't really apply anyway.
 
Last edited:
LesBleuMiserable said:
Age old adage what the ‘buyer is prepared to pay’ for a player desperate to leave. I would say given his age, only wants City, and other characteristics of past injury etc. £100 million is a fair sum and going off what Lukaku is being acquired for.
Click to expand...
That’s a good point
In a funny way the Lukaku deal could actually help
Lukaku is also less injury prone
Levy’s valuation of £160 million is way north of the mark.
 
LesBleuMiserable said:
Age old adage what the ‘buyer is prepared to pay’ for a player desperate to leave. I would say given his age, only wants City, and other characteristics of past injury etc. £100 million is a fair sum and going off what Lukaku is being acquired for.
Click to expand...
Although Harry Kane wants to move, I don't think he's "desperate" to leave Spurs.
He wasn't forced to sign a long contract, he was happy to do so. Spurs want him to stay for the full term and I see no reason to think that he wouldn’t stay if a move to City falls through.

Kane isn't stupid. Levy isn't stupid. City aren't stupid. Common sense suggests that Spurs will stick by their guns and only sell if the asking price is met.

Whatever anyone else thinks is a "fair sum" for Harry Kane, the simple fact is that the only people who can decide what figure equates to a "fair sum" are all sitting in the Spurs Boardroom.

Kane will only sign for City when City pay the full asking price. We're not in the driving seat in this deal.
 
Burtonblue said:
That’s a good point
In a funny way the Lukaku deal could actually help
Lukaku is also less injury prone
Levy’s valuation of £160 million is way north of the mark.
Click to expand...
Won’t argue with the valuation. Shouldn’t be many comparisons with Kane and lukaku though because if you did youd see why we’d end up paying more for Kane. By far the better player
 
CityMental said:
That's like going into an Aston Martin dealer and saying I know you want to sell that car, so I'm going to offer below what you actually want to sell it for because you need to get rid of it. It doesn't work like that.

To add to this, Spurs clearly don't want to sell either so that quote doesn't really apply anyway.
Click to expand...
Never bought an Aston per se, but that's how I've always bought new cars. You pay list price?
 
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