Harry Kane

I don’t know what to believe anymore. Some journalists are better with City info than others and that goes for some posters on here too.

But if you put all the reliable sources‘ info together on this Kane transfer none of it makes sense as a lot is contradictory. They can’t all be right.

I don't think I’ve seen this before to this extent so although I love the rumours I don’t believe any of it this time.

I’d guess City put in a bid for Kane that was rejected and they will put another in nearer the deadline. The rest is second hand info that are probably guesses too and passed on by well meaning ITKs who all believe their contacts to be reliable.

There‘s no concrete info from either side leaking out.

Grealish was easy as anyone with a brain cell could work out both clubs were behaving as if there was a release clause and still many believed there wasn’t…particularly Villa fans.
 
Denen said:
Some of what you say is true, Spurs could rebuild with the Kane money, but you are forgetting one key point - City haven't met Spurs valuation. Why should Spurs sell Kane at a cheaper price than his value? You seem to be listing all the reasons why Spurs are stupid for not selling, but missing out that City haven't made an offer high enough. That is the single main point why the deal hasn't been done. If City meet the price, Spurs will sell and rebuild, but if not will keep Kane.
Click to expand...
Because you'll never get the money City have offered from anyone ever again. You play the big boy negotiator and you are stuck with the same shite team you had before with the notable exception that your best player doesn't want to be there.

Why should City match Levy's stupidly high figure when he's the one who's talisman and biggest asset doesn't want to be there and his value is declining and will soon free fall?

City are fine without Kane, we have proved that over the last 5 years.
Tottenham are shite with Kane, as they have proved that over the last 5 years.

Not to mention Tottenham are in crippling debt and aren't even in the Europa League.
 
yankblue said:
Whether we get Kane or not (I think we ultimately will), I dont really understand Levy's long term strategy here.

Trying to be totally unbiased here, I get that they don't want to sell Kane in the same way no club wants to sell their best players. I get he means a lot to the club, truly I do. It sucks. It hasn't been so long that I don't remember those says.

But take a step back, and Spurs are not title contenders. Just not even close. Their best shot was 2016-17, and they blew it, and they've gotten worse every year since. That was 5 years ago. They have not improved, quite the opposite. Honestly anything above a 5th or 6th place finish this year would be a minor miracle. They are out of the CL and for now its difficult to envision a path back in.

Kane is a depreciating asset. He will never be worth more than he is this summer. And he wants out. So if you're Levy, you're not the bad guy. Your hand was forced. You postured as long as you could. There's nothing more you can do.

With a Kane sale early + their normal budget, Spurs could have spread that money and brought in several quality players. They could have identified several targets and rebuilt around what they had, and improved the team long term even if it may take a season or two after losing Kane.

Now they might keep Kane (maybe? i guess?) and seem like big, tough negotiators but will be worse off in the long run imo. Just shortsighted thinking, which is how they got saddled with the Mourinho fiasco last year.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the aftermath of the Bale saga is having an effect on Levy.

IIRC, Spurs reinvested the Bale money straight away but spent it on shite like Lamela, Soldado and Paulinho. If Levy was to sell Kane and reinvest the money on unsuccessful signings, surely big questions would be asked of his leadership. I mean even big money recent signings like Lo Celso and Ndombele have nowhere near justified their fees.

Maybe he is leaving the sale to the last possible minute so he doesn't have to reinvest the money straight away.
 
Denen said:
Some of what you say is true, Spurs could rebuild with the Kane money, but you are forgetting one key point - City haven't met Spurs valuation. Why should Spurs sell Kane at a cheaper price than his value? You seem to be listing all the reasons why Spurs are stupid for not selling, but missing out that City haven't made an offer high enough. That is the single main point why the deal hasn't been done. If City meet the price, Spurs will sell and rebuild, but if not will keep Kane.

Another thing, the Kane money won't go far in the market. Vlahovic is being priced at crazy prices, Martinez they wanted 80 million, both now seem to be unavailable, Spurs would only be able to buy two players with the money and they will carry their own risks.

If Spurs sold Kane and were not able to sign replacements, the season would be over before it began.
Click to expand...
And equally why should City pay more than we think he is worth. Personally I think £100m can s right, £120m could be acceptable given the “City Tax” and the seller being Levy, anything more I really hope we walk away. The chances of spurs getting too 4 this season is slim as City, chelsea liverpool and united all look miles stronger, so the chances are this time next year spurs will be in a europa league/conference with an even more pissed off asset, moving into his 30th year and worth about £70m. If spurs don’t get top 4 is HK worth that drop in value to them? I doubt it, snd I hope levy chokes on the debt. Is your next game this Thursday in the wotsit cup?
 
daztrueblue91 said:
Perhaps the aftermath of the Bale saga is having an effect on Levy.

IIRC, Spurs reinvested the Bale money straight away but spent it on shite like Lamela, Soldado and Paulinho. If Levy was to sell Kane and reinvest the money on unsuccessful signings, surely big questions would be asked of his leadership. I mean even big money recent signings like Lo Celso and Ndombele have nowhere near justified their fees.

Maybe he is leaving the sale to the last possible minute so he doesn't have to reinvest the money straight away.
Click to expand...
If it did then he'd have given himself more time. He hasn't learned a thing.
 
Denen said:
Some of what you say is true, Spurs could rebuild with the Kane money, but you are forgetting one key point - City haven't met Spurs valuation. Why should Spurs sell Kane at a cheaper price than his value? You seem to be listing all the reasons why Spurs are stupid for not selling, but missing out that City haven't made an offer high enough. That is the single main point why the deal hasn't been done. If City meet the price, Spurs will sell and rebuild, but if not will keep Kane.

Another thing, the Kane money won't go far in the market. Vlahovic is being priced at crazy prices, Martinez they wanted 80 million, both now seem to be unavailable, Spurs would only be able to buy two players with the money and they will carry their own risks.

If Spurs sold Kane and were not able to sign replacements, the season would be over before it began.
Click to expand...
Get what you're saying, but that money would have gone farther had he not waited until the last week of the window. Prices only go up.

There's also something to be said about having a realistic valuation. I can value my used underwear at 1m a pop but can't complain nobody is meeting my valuation when it doesn't sell. I won't pretend to know what Levy's valuation is but if its 150m + add ons as reported he's not getting that, and he knows it, which brings me back to my orignal post.
 
Cobwebcat said:
I don’t know what to believe anymore. Some journalists are better with City info than others and that goes for some posters on here too.

But if you put all the reliable sources‘ info together on this Kane transfer none of it makes sense as a lot is contradictory. They can’t all be right.

I don't think I’ve seen this before to this extent so although I love the rumours I don’t believe any of it this time.

I’d guess City put in a bid for Kane that was rejected and they will put another in nearer the deadline. The rest is second hand info that are probably guesses too and passed on by well meaning ITKs who all believe their contacts to be reliable.

There‘s no concrete info from either side leaking out.

Grealish was easy as anyone with a brain cell could work out both clubs were behaving as if there was a release clause and still many believed there wasn’t…particularly Villa fans.
Click to expand...
I have it on good authority that indeed there was one, 100M, and once we put that bid in, talks took place and as they say, the rest is history!
 
Marvin said:
City haven't made a higher bid because we know Levy would reject it. At least that is my interpretation. I agree the money would not go that far but that's because Spurs wasted the entire Summer. Brinkmanship is Levy's style. I don't think it's a good way to run a club.
Click to expand...
Why not just keep making bids until we are maxed out rather than just one low bid then one more big one very late on that could easily be refused
 
If we sign him we're splurging mountains of cash and ruining the game- if we don't sign him we're being disrespectful to Tottenham and Kane and are ruining football.
Do we actually have a media strategy or anyone who is competent of pushing back the endless crap thrown at us.. If City were a person we'd be a victim of hate crime.
 
domalino said:
I remember when people had a fit because we'd bid €40m for a 17 year old at Monaco and it was rejected.

A year later he moved for €165m.

When strikers are at that age they go from zero to world class in about 18 months. Haaland goes from nobody to €150m's a bargain in the same time frame. Kane went from couldn't get in a championship side to England's number 9 and Spurs won't sell for any price between 21 and 22.

I don't know much about Vlahovic, it's not my job to know how good he is. But I don't give a shit about his age, or his lack of experience, or his price. These aren't valid arguments if the people in charge think he's good enough.
Click to expand...

Well said.

City fans (on here) are stuck between wanting the world class names a la Messi/Mbappe/Haaland, and doing a Dortmund by buying young up and coming players for smaller sums before their price tag rockets and bringing our own homegrown Messi through.

Yet Jesus and Torres who we did buy for good value are shite according to many.

If Pep wants to buy the top scorer from last season in the league I am all for it. But if the club is thinking longer term that is fine too. We will have peaks and troughs as a side. It is just about making sure those troughs are less arsenal/united and more Chelsea. I don't agree that Kane is a short term acquisition though. And it wouldn't be a bad thing for Delap, Jesus, Torres etc to see how you go from 1 goal in 2-3 games to a goal a game.
 
sd33 said:
he probably wants to win cl before he leaves in 2 years and thinks with kane he will be able to do it
Click to expand...
Or the extra 40m or whatever might suddenly become worth it if pep is tempted by 4-5 years of Our generally young midfield & Kane as a centre forward.
 
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