Harry Kane

[Burtonblue]

He encapsulates everything that sets my teeth on edge when I hear bin dippers speak, cocky little tosspot, ramped full of cliches a cheeky chappy raised as an annoying little twunt.

You forgot the thieving bit....

 

[daztrueblue91]

I have 3.He'd be well over £100mill,The best we could hope for is 4 good years. With his history of ankle injuries it could be less than 4 good years.
There are better younger options.

1. Any top quality striker is going to cost north of £100 million.

2. Kane’s game does not rely on pace and he’s becoming a smarter player with age. Even If he spends 5 seasons here, he will beat Shearer’s record and justify the money IMO.

3. By better, younger options I take it you mean Haaland and Mbappe. Both of which would cost more than Kane and are not proven in the PL.

His injuries would be a slight concern but he’d have to pass a medical before joining and he’d be rotated a lot more than he is at Spurs.

Also, on the first point of the transfer fee, I don’t understand people’s obsession with this. We’re not a side who sells our prime assets and when we lose a player, they end up like Sane and run their contract down so we lose market value anyway.

We might get another 3 years out of Pep if we’re lucky. Give him the tools to smash the PL and Europe now.

For me, I’m not arsed out of Haaland and Kane who we sign, both are top quality strikers and would improve the side.

 

[daztrueblue91]

Would you rather sign Kane or Fernandes? Because right now Fernandes would be the better signing, unless “you’re a bit clueless”. But I wouldn’t blame anyone for not wanting to sign him

What a nonsense argument.

 

[nmc]

I don't know the detail but Spurs invested over £850m in a new stadium - only to see revenues collapse at a time when they were projecting huge growth - even when crowds return to football its hard to know when the NFL will start playing fixtures in Europe again. They have numerous loans and bonds to manage and they have taken huge sums from the Governments Covid schemes to prop things up. Whether their financial position is sustainable or not is difficult to predict but things cannot be looking too good so they may be pushed into raising some cash and beyond Kane they don't have too many major assets.

 

[Deleted member 87819]

What a nonsense argument.

Really, why?

 

[MillisleBlue]

Nailed on to bag a hat-trick against us in the Cup Final as Spurs miraculously begin playing like world beaters.

 

[hgblue]

Nailed on to bag a hat-trick against us in the Cup Final as Spurs miraculously begin playing like world beaters.

Don’t worry, the experts on this thread have reliably informed us he aint all that ;)

 

[LongsightM13]

For me, I’m not arsed out of Haaland and Kane who we sign, both are top quality strikers and would improve the side.

That last paragraph nails it. Would prefer Haaland due to his age but anyone turning their nose up at Kane as an alternative must be mad. He would be a significant upgrade on what we have up front

 

[blueparrot]

1. Any top quality striker is going to cost north of £100 million.

2. Kane’s game does not rely on pace and he’s becoming a smarter player with age. Even If he spends 5 seasons here, he will beat Shearer’s record and justify the money IMO.

3. By better, younger options I take it you mean Haaland and Mbappe. Both of which would cost more than Kane and are not proven in the PL.

His injuries would be a slight concern but he’d have to pass a medical before joining and he’d be rotated a lot more than he is at Spurs.

Also, on the first point of the transfer fee, I don’t understand people’s obsession with this. We’re not a side who sells our prime assets and when we lose a player, they end up like Sane and run their contract down so we lose market value anyway.

We might get another 3 years out of Pep if we’re lucky. Give him the tools to smash the PL and Europe now.

For me, I’m not arsed out of Haaland and Kane who we sign, both are top quality strikers and would improve the side.

Haaland and maybe even Mbappe probably wouldn't cost more than Kane, both would give us 10 years or more or a resale. Kane would give us 4 years 5 maximum. Thats how I'd expect the club to see it too, and it's why we have a DOF not managers making the final decisions.

 

[daztrueblue91]

Really, why?

1. We’re crying out for a striker but have an abundance of creative midfielders.

2. Fernandes is not better than De Bruyne and isn’t really an upgrade of Gundogan based on this seasons form.

3. Kane is levels above any striker we have at the club.

For what it’s worth, I’d take both Kane and Fernandes at City in a heartbeat. They’re both top players.

But based on what we need and the fact that Kane is a top 3 striker in the world, I don’t see the relevance to Fernandes.