Harry Kane

Gus Cruz said:
I think you may have seen from the my posts after the one you replied to that I am making precisely the opposite point. I agree with you that the club is looking at what they bring on the pitch. And making smart deals in that regard.

I don’t think we would have done what PSG did with Neymar, by paying what they did to Barcelona, for instance. But we would have (it’s a fact) paid for Mbappe what his price was had he chosen us. Every single scout saw that he was a generational talent and a marketable superstar. It would have been a smart investment.

Stars like those two, the ones that drastically change our place in the world, don’t come around often. We were willing to offer Messi an insane deal for him last summer because he too would have had an impact. As I have said in another thread, I am willing to bet that we won’t miss out on Haaland for being outspent. We may miss out on him in case he chooses another team, but the opportunity to sign him, not just for the immense talent, but the commercial opportunity, is not one we will let it pass. It doesn’t mean we won’t try to make the best possible deal, obviously.

With Kane, I just don’t see the evidence that the club would be willing to pay that much for a player that brings nothing off the pitch. I don’t rule out being wrong, but I have to see it happen to believe it. I don’t think any club would spend that much just for the sporting gains.

We already have what is already seen as the best team in the world, but there is a “next step” commercially that can still be taken. We can win all the titles this year, but that’s not the limit. We have the potential to be the most talked about club, the most sold shirt, etc in the world. Haaland is the kind of star (like Mbappe or Messi) that would make the kind of difference in that regard. Any of those three come in and they immediately become the biggest star in the Premier League, but not only that, they also change the profile of the Premier League, our merchandising goes through the roof as do our deals. Those stars aren’t made every two years. Which is why you make an exception to our model for them. Like PSG did — that was the point of my example. You look at what PSG does besides Neymar and Mbappe and it’s not very different from us. Those two took them to the next level. We were willing to make Mbappe in 2017 be “the one”. Then Messi last summer was an unexpected possibility that opened up. You can listen to Sam Lee’s podcasts around that time. He talks about how Messi has been a project of City for years, and how we saw him as a way to expand the brand of the group. Now you have Haaland who can take us there. Maybe you think we don’t care about having the same global presence of PSG or surpass that of our domestic rivals. I would say that is a naive view
Click to expand...
Reading your posts is like reading a newspaper column
 
Gus Cruz said:
I think you may have seen from the my posts after the one you replied to that I am making precisely the opposite point. I agree with you that the club is looking at what they bring on the pitch. And making smart deals in that regard.

I don’t think we would have done what PSG did with Neymar, by paying what they did to Barcelona, for instance. But we would have (it’s a fact) paid for Mbappe what his price was had he chosen us. Every single scout saw that he was a generational talent and a marketable superstar. It would have been a smart investment.

Stars like those two, the ones that drastically change our place in the world, don’t come around often. We were willing to offer Messi an insane deal for him last summer because he too would have had an impact. As I have said in another thread, I am willing to bet that we won’t miss out on Haaland for being outspent. We may miss out on him in case he chooses another team, but the opportunity to sign him, not just for the immense talent, but the commercial opportunity, is not one we will let it pass. It doesn’t mean we won’t try to make the best possible deal, obviously.

With Kane, I just don’t see the evidence that the club would be willing to pay that much for a player that brings nothing off the pitch. I don’t rule out being wrong, but I have to see it happen to believe it. I don’t think any club would spend that much just for the sporting gains.

We already have what is already seen as the best team in the world, but there is a “next step” commercially that can still be taken. We can win all the titles this year, but that’s not the limit. We have the potential to be the most talked about club, the most sold shirt, etc in the world. Haaland is the kind of star (like Mbappe or Messi) that would make the kind of difference in that regard. Any of those three come in and they immediately become the biggest star in the Premier League, but not only that, they also change the profile of the Premier League, our merchandising goes through the roof as do our deals. Those stars aren’t made every two years. Which is why you make an exception to our model for them. Like PSG did — that was the point of my example. You look at what PSG does besides Neymar and Mbappe and it’s not very different from us. Those two took them to the next level. We were willing to make Mbappe in 2017 be “the one”. Then Messi last summer was an unexpected possibility that opened up. You can listen to Sam Lee’s podcasts around that time. He talks about how Messi has been a project of City for years, and how we saw him as a way to expand the brand of the group. Now you have Haaland who can take us there. Maybe you think we don’t care about having the same global presence of PSG or surpass that of our domestic rivals. I would say that is a naive view
Click to expand...

Think you're massively overestimating Haaland's marketability. On top of being the biggest talents you have to fall in other categories too.

1. Good looks(Ronaldo, Beckham)
2. Being the big star coming from a big footballing nation(Neymar,Mbappe)
3. Be Messi
4. Flair players that are exciting to watch for neutrals(Ronaldinho, Iniesta)

Haaland doesn't fall into any of those categories. He has less social media followers than Gabby does for example and the only way he'll overtake Gabby is by moving to Real or Barca.
Phil is more marketable for us imo, this season his profile has skyrocketed, even has rival fans waxing lyrical about him. Just needs to do well in Europe and England to do well and we have a global star.
If it's individual world wide marketability you want then it should be Mbappe we are after.
 
Last edited:
I want City to sign Haaland for a number of reasons - he's my number one choice but we don't always get our number one choice and if we can't get Haaland my number two choice would be Kane. I would certainly not be throwing tantrums and cursing the club if Harry Kane became s City player in the summer. And one of the thoughts that would never enter my head is what his resale value is going to be. It's thinking about resale value that has got the rags in the mess they are in - stuck paying a goalkeeper 375 grand a week on a nice long contract when they don't want him in the team and don't even want him in the club but would rather shell out £20 million a year than see him go for nothing. If Kane comes to City and performs well for 5 years that should suit the club and anything beyond that should be a bonus.
 
Gus Cruz said:
I think you may have seen from the my posts after the one you replied to that I am making precisely the opposite point. I agree with you that the club is looking at what they bring on the pitch. And making smart deals in that regard.

I don’t think we would have done what PSG did with Neymar, by paying what they did to Barcelona, for instance. But we would have (it’s a fact) paid for Mbappe what his price was had he chosen us. Every single scout saw that he was a generational talent and a marketable superstar. It would have been a smart investment.

Stars like those two, the ones that drastically change our place in the world, don’t come around often. We were willing to offer Messi an insane deal for him last summer because he too would have had an impact. As I have said in another thread, I am willing to bet that we won’t miss out on Haaland for being outspent. We may miss out on him in case he chooses another team, but the opportunity to sign him, not just for the immense talent, but the commercial opportunity, is not one we will let it pass. It doesn’t mean we won’t try to make the best possible deal, obviously.

With Kane, I just don’t see the evidence that the club would be willing to pay that much for a player that brings nothing off the pitch. I don’t rule out being wrong, but I have to see it happen to believe it. I don’t think any club would spend that much just for the sporting gains.

We already have what is already seen as the best team in the world, but there is a “next step” commercially that can still be taken. We can win all the titles this year, but that’s not the limit. We have the potential to be the most talked about club, the most sold shirt, etc in the world. Haaland is the kind of star (like Mbappe or Messi) that would make the kind of difference in that regard. Any of those three come in and they immediately become the biggest star in the Premier League, but not only that, they also change the profile of the Premier League, our merchandising goes through the roof as do our deals. Those stars aren’t made every two years. Which is why you make an exception to our model for them. Like PSG did — that was the point of my example. You look at what PSG does besides Neymar and Mbappe and it’s not very different from us. Those two took them to the next level. We were willing to make Mbappe in 2017 be “the one”. Then Messi last summer was an unexpected possibility that opened up. You can listen to Sam Lee’s podcasts around that time. He talks about how Messi has been a project of City for years, and how we saw him as a way to expand the brand of the group. Now you have Haaland who can take us there. Maybe you think we don’t care about having the same global presence of PSG or surpass that of our domestic rivals. I would say that is a naive view
Click to expand...
Well I think you are really over estimating players brand. Harry kane is the England captain and can easily become the best striker in the world and let’s say we win the champions league with him and he scores many goals he can easily win balon d’or. Your Mbappe and haaland are only talked about because of their performances in the champions league, I know Neymar is a world brand and has the whole of brazil behind him. Who in bayerns squad has a big marketing brand? Lewandowski has been performing since but he only got his praise after bayern won the champions league so all this talk is a bit pointless.
 
01cravend said:
Think you're massively overestimating Haaland's marketability. On top of being the biggest talent you have to fall in other categories too.

1. Good looks(Ronaldo, Beckham)
2. Being the big star coming from a big footballing nation(Neymar,Mbappe)
3. Be Messi
4. Flair players that are exciting to watch for neutrals(Ronaldinho, Iniesta)

Haaland doesn't fall into any of those categories. He has less social media followers than Gabby does for example and the only way he'll overtake Gabby is by moving to Real or Barca.
Phil is more marketable for us imo, this season his profile has skyrocketed, even has rival fans waxing lyrical about him. Just needs to do well in Europe and England to do well and we have a global star.
If it's individual world wide marketability you want then it should be Mbappe we are after.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I said.
Fine he might slightly increase our Norway following but most people in norway follow Liverpool or United which are our premier league rivals so it won’t be that much.

Mbappe and Neymar have almost the whole of france and Brazil who love them
 
If for the exact same transfer fee, I'd take Kane just simply because his wage won't be something silly like what the snake Raiola is floating around. My problem with Kane is his age and his injury history.
 
jay laruja said:
If for the exact same transfer fee, I'd take Kane just simply because his wage won't be something silly like what the snake Raiola is floating around. My problem with Kane is his age and his injury history.
Click to expand...
Yep Kane’s wages are around 200k a week if we can’t get Haaland Kane is the best second choice!
 
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
✖
  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.