Harry Kane

[PannickAtTheDisco]

As one sensible poster on Spurs Community said, he's gutted to be losing Kane, but if they get £150m for him plus another £50m from other sales & buy 3 x £70m starters with the money, Spurs will be stronger & better for it.

Yes one Kane will make us stronger, but 3 quality additions for Spurs will make them infinitely stronger going forward, & probably allow them to seriously challenge for a top 4 spot within the next two seasons.

If Kane stayed, & Spurs make minimum additions to their squad, I can't see them sustaining a challenge long enough to displace Us, ManUre, Chavs or the Dippers. With 3 quality additions for Spurs, that top four spot isn't assured for anyone imo.

yeah, but they have to replace the best striker they've ever had, which they can't. It's like Barca losing Messi.

 

[kippaxwarrior]

They're not as bad as people think debt wise. It's all long term barely any interest. They'll have the stadium paid off quickly once they get other events starting to roll too. AJ/Rugby/NFL already set.

And it all points to them reinvesting every penny of this Kane money too. He's not as tight as people think, prudent is more accurate and he has a rep as a tough negotiator but he's stepped back from all football aside from the Kane deal. They've always reinvested money from any sale

How can you call a £1.2B debt not bad? They have to pay the inland revenue £94M by the end of September

 

[Calv_from_the_frog]

Now, my thinking is that - if we are to do this transfer - it'll be sometime between now and kickoff on Sunday.

A few reasons for this:

1 - Spurs need to have the time to spend whatever money they get from us.

2 - It eliminates the chance of us pumelling them and them getting funny in negotiations OR - conversely - us losing and it being seen as a favour.

3 - An announcement / rumour of an accepted bid shortly before kickoff gets their crowd well up for it now that Levy seems to have made the Kane camp the enemy.

My money - not that I'm putting money on - is on a rabble rousing reluctantly accepted bid about 1 hour before kickoff.

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

They're not as bad as people think debt wise. It's all long term barely any interest. They'll have the stadium paid off quickly once they get other events starting to roll too. AJ/Rugby/NFL already set.

And it all points to them reinvesting every penny of this Kane money too. He's not as tight as people think, prudent is more accurate and he has a rep as a tough negotiator but he's stepped back from all football aside from the Kane deal. They've always reinvested money from any sale

And very wisely invested it too ;-)

 

[Sam1980]

Can’t shake the feeling that if the Kane deal is all or nothing and it fails, it’s going to bite us in the ass later in the season

100%

 

[theone91]

Again ornstein today saying city only willing to offer 100 million plus add ons but that won’t be close to 150/160 million, levy stance hasn’t changed and has made it abundantly clear to city he won’t sell…….what I’ve been saying all summer.

 

[domalino]

yeah, but they have to replace the best striker they've ever had, which they can't. It's like Barca losing Messi.

Also the last time they spent 70m on someone they bought Ndombele, who 3 successive managers have fallen out with and dropped and they can't sell him because he cost so much and is on commensurate wages.

 

[Damocles]

They're not as bad as people think debt wise. It's all long term barely any interest. They'll have the stadium paid off quickly once they get other events starting to roll too. AJ/Rugby/NFL already set.

And it all points to them reinvesting every penny of this Kane money too. He's not as tight as people think, prudent is more accurate and he has a rep as a tough negotiator but he's stepped back from all football aside from the Kane deal. They've always reinvested money from any sale

They're miles away from paying off the stadium. Decades and decades.

Spurs aren't Barcelona but the pandemic came at the wrong time for them and they desperately need to make economies to get back on the right track. That £150m could save them £10m a year in interest payments which is much more useful than a Harry Kane.

 

[Damocles]

Again ornstein today saying city only willing to offer 100 million plus add ons but that won’t be close to 150/160 million, levy stance hasn’t changed and has made it abundantly clear to city he won’t sell…….what I’ve been saying all summer.

Ornstein knows nothing about City. The reliable reporters and ITKs on both sides are in agreement to where the deal is at and it'd close.

 

[DMA's]

 

[theone91]

Ornstein knows nothing about City. The reliable reporters and ITKs on both sides are in agreement to where the deal is at and it'd close.

Okay sure mate
ITKs on both sides loooool
Please tell me what ITK on Tottenham’s side has said a deal is close

 

[bluemoon32]

yeah, but they have to replace the best striker they've ever had, which they can't. It's like Barca losing Messi.

Jimmy Greaves is the best they've ever had

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

They're not as bad as people think debt wise. It's all long term barely any interest. They'll have the stadium paid off quickly once they get other events starting to roll too. AJ/Rugby/NFL already set.

And it all points to them reinvesting every penny of this Kane money too. He's not as tight as people think, prudent is more accurate and he has a rep as a tough negotiator but he's stepped back from all football aside from the Kane deal. They've always reinvested money from any sale

Stepped back from football, wasnt he responsible for sacking Poch, installing Maureen then asking Poch to come back ans then going through a long list of other managers who all seemed to decline the position presumably part in due to the fact that they would have very little transfer kitty. Levy ans the owner are there to make money thats it not to win things.

 

[Damocles]

Okay sure mate
ITKs on both sides loooool
Please tell me what ITK on Tottenham’s side has said a deal is close

 

[Bustergonad]

I get you
I'm just so deadset against selling him as I don't want to give you/any other team the league's other best player.

Hopefully this shows you just how good a player he is.

I think he’s a top player doesn’t rely on pace which generally means he’ll play at the top level for longer than someone who heavily relies on pace such as Sterling for example. He’s obsessed with scoring goals but like Aguero was which you need as a world class striker. I think he’d be ideal for City and I don’t care how much we pay as it’s not my money. Football transfer values are a bit like Monopoly money the value is plucked out of the air not based on any costs or money invested just an indication of how important the player is to the selling club. As long as it’s within FFP and we don’t get fined or threatened with bans or anymore negative publicity (we’ll get this anyway) we will hopefully pay it. If Lukaku is worth 95m plus add ons Kane is worth 120m easily

 

[TINY]

Jimmy Greaves is the best they've ever had

Is correct

 

[chesterbells]

Fish
Chips
Peas
Gravy

THE go to chippy tea

Peas and gravy? Dirty.

 

[LangleyBlue1970]

Well that’s interesting.

 

[Dribble]

What's the latest everyone

There's a dude who doesn't like gravy on his chips. :-|

Elsewhere, fuck knows what's happening with Kane. We've had everything from £100m with £20-£30m in add-ons, to Levy won't budge unless he gets £160m. \0/

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

Don't Spurs always sell their best player whenever there's a '1' in the year? Even more confident now.