Harry Kane

Do you want City to go back in for Kane in January?


  • Total voters
    572
  • Poll closed .

applecentral

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 May 2011
Messages
816
I reckon we can safely say Kane is not coming to City. Age 27 worth bugger all after a 5 year deal makes the kind of eye watering transfer Levy will demand a non starter.
Our owners are too intelligent to invest a vast sum of money with no return. Yes he will score goals, plenty of them, but so will someone else who is much younger and with a genuine resale value.
On top of that he is starting to pick up more injuries. We would be paying top money for a player who is at his peak right now but will start to slowly decline in the next few years.
Personally I think we can rule Harry Kane out!!? Let our red friends from down the road buy him. If not then I see his asking price drop quite considerably from 175m, because his age is against such a huge investment.
 

FantasyIreland

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 Oct 2008
Messages
54,092
Err yeah.
I read your post to mean we already had enough players who can play in the false number 9 system and therefore didn't need a player like Felix whereas I meant to reply that maybe Pep wants more of such players ( although admittedly I didn't express that too well).

I was only pulling your leg,Len.

Cheers
 

D'Silva

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Feb 2021
Messages
169
Location
Pyongyang
Team supported
MCFC
People are so up Haaland's arse they'll not even consider league's best CF for the last few years as alternative. We are in need of a striker on Sergio's level and Kane is the only one in the league on par so he will naturally be in the conversation. Haaland is not a dead certainty to sign. Kane is more accessible, Prem proven and will perform for this team if he signs. Also zero *ucks given on his supposedly twattish behavior or some bluemooners bleeding heart because he saw Harry stole a kid's lollipop. I honestly don't like most Spurs players myself because they are absolute twats and even more raggish than United. Rest assured Kane will have to dial down his cuntish behavior when playing for us because we are not FA darlings like Spuds or Leicester, Walker found that out quickly in his first season. I dare say save for his insane valuation and transfer fee, City will have an easier time convincing Kane to come here than Haaland because we won't have to deal with moneybag Raiola or Haaland's already over inflated ego.
 

yankblue

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 Jan 2009
Messages
4,192
Kane is a fantastic player. A bit cuntish yeah, but honestly who cares if he were to start banging goals in regularly wearing sky blue. He does have a few advantages over Haaland - his style of play would fit us like a glove, and he's clearly prem proven so would theoretically hit the ground running. So from that perspective, he would be a better signing then Haaland.

Only, for me anyway, it's not that cut and dry. He'll be 29 (I think) next season. So he's already peaked, and even though his peak is pretty fucking high, that has to be taken into account - that he's not getting any better than what he already is. But that's fine, what really worries me is the injuries. At 29, he's had some serious injuries in his legs, and he's not exactly a short guy, so leg and ankle injuries are a major red flag. He could pick up another one and be done at the top level, or even if he remains healthy, he's reaching the age where his play could just naturally decline. There are plenty of footballers that nosedived at that age, for injuries or other reasons, especially at striker. What is the best case scenario? We get another 3 or 4 years out of him at his current level? That's great, but not exactly a long-term solution.

Then you take into account the cost. Dealing with Levy is never easy. I'm not going to pretend to know the ins and outs in transfers, but I'd guess the cost to get Kane would be pretty close, if not exceeding the cost to get Haaland. And, taking into account his age again, we wouldn't get anything for selling Kane on. Haaland, even if he comes here and bombs, or if in a few years he wants to move on, we'd be able to recoup some of that cost if not turn a profit.

So taking all that into account, I'd prefer Haaland. He's younger, he doesn't have the injury concerns, and we have no idea what his peak is. It could be the best player on the planet. He could realistically lead the line for the next 10+ years. But, if it doesn't happen, Kane is not a bad Option B.

Don't get me started on Danny fucking Ings though.
 

richards30

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 May 2009
Messages
18,016
Abit of a shithouse yes but fucking hell kane would score a SHITLOAD in our team! And he would be our shithouse as well ;-)
 

Don't have an account?

Register now!
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.