You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Harry Kane
- Thread starter Super Joey Hart
- Start date
citytill1die84
Well-Known Member
Ok cheers.I think so
Paul hirst
1st mutterings from city that a deal may not be possibleYeah almost except this is coming from city side and that was from kane camp
itisrising
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 4,471
Nothing new about that.If Kane comes in someone is out.
Not that simple. Clearly we have to sell because Kane would cost more than we would've liked/imagined. That is new.
Unless we sell yes1st mutterings from city that a deal may not be possible
blueparrot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 33,355
Nobody at the club needs to reconcile it. They know whats happening. They don’t need to rely on media and twitter made up sources.would love to know how anyone at the club reconciles "city sources have confirmed Levy was refusing to enter any kind of negotiation" and "city remain confident of signing Harry Kane"
horlock_was_super
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 4,170
- Location
- In complete despair at 93:19
- Team supported
- Manchester City F.C.
I knew the original because my Mum loved it - honest! She hated The Stranglers version ( which I thought was great )I’m afraid to say I think you may be!
If you’d referenced The Stranglers 96 Tears I would have got it, but the act you’ve named there just makes me think of Gerry Anderson’s puppets! ;-)
birchwoodgingerste
Well-Known Member
not looking good
Same as before tbf maybe thats the hold up selling someone.
hihosilva
Well-Known Member
i think we would be selling even if Levy accepted our original offer.Not that simple. Clearly we have to sell because Kane would cost more than we would've liked/imagined. That is new.
JamesMCFC
Well-Known Member
not looking good
That has to be bollocks surely?
The club has been after Kane for months. There is no way we were banking on selling one of our players for £50m or more when there has been a pandemic for the past year or so and these players are on £150k plus a week.
If we were banking on that we have been either naive or stupid.
Thaksinssoldier
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 10,416
1st mutterings from city that a deal may not be possible
Which coupled with the link to the other lad is City's way of hurrying Levy up.
rodney marshes jockstrap
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2009
- Messages
- 66
Playing devil's advocate....supposing it goes right down to the wire and no deal gets done...have we got enough with all the talents we have to win it again or is it all dependent on kane/similar upfront
yeah, first sign that deal might be off1st mutterings from city that a deal may not be possible
prestonibbo_mcfc
Well-Known Member
Don't believe for one minute that bit about having to sell.That has to be bollocks surely?
The club has been after Kane for months. There is no way we were banking on selling one of our players for £50m or more when there has been a pandemic for the past year or so and these players are on £150k plus a week.
If we were banking on that we have been either naive or stupid.
Keith Moncrieff
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2020
- Messages
- 498
- Team supported
- Manchester City
not looking good
How come they’ve only supposed to have worked this out at this stage of the game? Sounds a load of bollocks
samuelyeboah
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 May 2021
- Messages
- 6,878
- Team supported
- Manchester City
i'll entertain the notion that the hirst article isn't bullshit for just a moment
If we truly can't buy kane unless we sell a player, then getting grealish is quite possibly the stupidest thing we've ever done. a striker is so much more important, and banking the ENTIRE summer on being able to move someone like bernardo, with the current market being that no one has cash, and he's on a huge salary, is such a dumb move that even though I think hirst is a credible journalist, it makes me question that article. if it were true it'd be too stupid a move to conceive. Why on earth would we get grealish first and potentially lock ourselves out of a striker, which is a far more important position? Doesn't seem right.
the only thing I can think of is that one of his sources is just lying for some sort of negotiation tactics,
If we truly can't buy kane unless we sell a player, then getting grealish is quite possibly the stupidest thing we've ever done. a striker is so much more important, and banking the ENTIRE summer on being able to move someone like bernardo, with the current market being that no one has cash, and he's on a huge salary, is such a dumb move that even though I think hirst is a credible journalist, it makes me question that article. if it were true it'd be too stupid a move to conceive. Why on earth would we get grealish first and potentially lock ourselves out of a striker, which is a far more important position? Doesn't seem right.
the only thing I can think of is that one of his sources is just lying for some sort of negotiation tactics,
manimanc
Well-Known Member
We got the money after a successful year last season.
Haven't the ffp restrictions been loosened because of covid?
Fuck me chelsea have spent over 300m since their transfer ban got lifted. The red mardarses have spunked over 100m in transfers.
Then when we want to spend money it's all bells and whistles and ffp and we have to sell before we buy.
Just fuckin say to the **** Levy name your price, we got money to spend.
Haven't the ffp restrictions been loosened because of covid?
Fuck me chelsea have spent over 300m since their transfer ban got lifted. The red mardarses have spunked over 100m in transfers.
Then when we want to spend money it's all bells and whistles and ffp and we have to sell before we buy.
Just fuckin say to the **** Levy name your price, we got money to spend.