Harry Kane

[Gabriel]

You were the club that set the price for an option to buy last year. It’s not our fault Harrison’s performances exceeded that price.

Surely your moral compass should have gone haywire this summer and seen you offer more. Instead, you’re splurging on cushions for the manager’s upturned bucket!…

 

[decmancity]

With the saga now at the point where levy wants £150+ and city rightfully don't want to spend that amount on a 28 year old kane. Why not just scrap kane and go and buy Dusan Vlahovic and Nuno Mendes.
Target man with lots more pace than kane and a left back we have needed for 5 years plus.

City have known from the very start what it would take to sign him. The fact this is still on going and City haven't publically pulled away means its still happening. It is a bit worrying that people still think we are negotiating.

Pep hasn't got time to see if Vlahovic is any good or develop. Mendes isn't a target, it has been made very clear on more than one occasion.

 

[BlueRockape]

Depends on whether you think Grealish is overpriced or not. He also had s release clause so we had no choice.
The value of anything is determined by what someone us willing to pay. If a loaf of bread is priced at 10 quid then its overpriced to me...maybe not fir others ( exaggerated to make a point)

Did the 100 mill include add-ons?

 

[Tokyo32]

That's certainly one side of the argument but equally having a longer contract helps the selling club maximise their revenue should they sell before the term is up. If, and it would seem that it may be the case, that Levy and Kane had an agreement then it puts a different slant on things.

Just forget about agreements, even if there were agreements it has already been broken so there is nothing like that.

 

[Gumzy97]

Bored of this now. Just want a striker in that can put the ball in the back of the net. Don't understand why it's Kane and only Kane. Surely the club have alternatives any striker that can put the ball in the back of the net would score so many goals in our team why does it have to be Kane

 

[Bluechipblue]

Fair play from spurs though surely? They value a player at £X, if City want to pay then great if not then the player doesn’t move. They don’t owe Kane or City anything.

I agree, Spurs have their own valuation of Kane. And they have every right to do so. The problem I have with it, is if we were to pay £160M, it would be our fault for inflating the market. Spurs would be one of the first clubs to squeal about increasing prices, blaming City, when they, being greedy bastards, would be a big part of the problem. Everybody blames the buying clubs in these situations, whereby, the selling club has equal responsibility for rocketing transfer fees, yet get a free ride.

 

[MarsLlama]

Why?

Because it's absurd to spend huge money on someone who's currently decent and might be good in the future, when you're trying to replace one of your best players ever.

 

[MarsLlama]

Bored of this now. Just want a striker in that can put the ball in the back of the net. Don't understand why it's Kane and only Kane. Surely the club have alternatives any striker that can put the ball in the back of the net would score so many goals in our team why does it have to be Kane

Who then?

 

[decmancity]

Bored of this now. Just want a striker in that can put the ball in the back of the net. Don't understand why it's Kane and only Kane. Surely the club have alternatives any striker that can put the ball in the back of the net would score so many goals in our team why does it have to be Kane

We have tried alternatives. It doesn't work. If it was as easy as buying someone for 30m then we would do it, its clearly not.

 

[mancityscot]

Who then?

Vlahovic, Martinez, Gerard Moreno are a few.