Harry Kane

[VOOMER]

We are recouping nearly 100M possibly in players sales and also on wages, add that to any forecast budget the club has for transfers in and I am sure it is aware of what it is doing financially.


Whether you, me or anyone else thinks they know what's best, I expect our accountants know better.

Would I want to spend 100M + on a striker? No not really, but if that is what we have to and the club believes it can afford to, then so be it.

Would you want to spend £120 million on a striker that went on to score 120 goals for us over 3 seasons, or £160 million that went on to score 450 goals for us over 10 seasons?

 

[decmancity]

Would you want to spend £120 million on a striker that went on to score 120 goals for us over 3 seasons, or £160 million that went on to score 450 goals for us over 10 seasons?

That isn't the two options on the table.

The option is 120m on Kane or back to someone like Danny Fucking Ings. Haaland is not happening.

 

[Nails]

Would you want to spend £120 million on a striker that went on to score 120 goals for us over 3 seasons, or £160 million that went on to score 450 goals for us over 10 seasons?

But that's not the choice.

 

[bigdavecox90]

That isn't the two options on the table.

The option is 120m on Kane or back to someone like Danny Fucking Ings. Haaland is not happening.

My worry is we leave it and leave it and leave it and then panic sign Ings on deadline day.

Please god, no.

 

[chaddblue]

Would you want to spend £120 million on a striker that went on to score 120 goals for us over 3 seasons, or £160 million that went on to score 450 goals for us over 10 seasons?

I suspect his agent will be looking to move him on 2 or 3 times over a 10 year period. Can't be missing out on his big pay days

 

[Phil1]

Would you want to spend £120 million on a striker that went on to score 120 goals for us over 3 seasons, or £160 million that went on to score 450 goals for us over 10 seasons?

Before I make my choice are these numbers guaranteed?

 

[urban genie]

Would you want to spend £120 million on a striker that went on to score 120 goals for us over 3 seasons, or £160 million that went on to score 450 goals for us over 10 seasons?

Neither of those scenarios are guarenteed so the question is irrelevant.

Unless you were being hypothetical


And even then I doubt it would happen so still irrrelevant

 

[Coatigan]

Would you want to spend £120 million on a striker that went on to score 120 goals for us over 3 seasons, or £160 million that went on to score 450 goals for us over 10 seasons?

If Harry Kane could score 120 goals in 3 seasons, he would be well worth that 120m, even if that other option shat gold for the next 10 years.

 

[gomer27]

If Harry Kane could score 120 goals in 3 seasons, he would be well worth that 120m, even if that other option shat gold for the next 10 years.

120 goals in 3 seasons is insane....would be worth every penny spent

 

[wagonman]

I don’t always agree with Pep.
I know shocking isn’t it.

Yeah... but which one knows most about football and especially Man City?

JJ