Harry Kane

Psychedelic Casual said:
You’ll get a few of the Transfer Forum weirdos moaning at you for your post but you’re not wrong.

Paying £100+m for a player that will not get any better nor any faster (and we’ll never be able to sell him on) at his age now, is daft behaviour from City.

Three figure sums should be reserved for the excellent 22-25 year olds who you know you’re going to get a good 6-10 years out of. This bloke could be fucked in the next two years looking at how unathletic and slow he already is and how many injuries he’s had.

The fee is silly and Spurs want more than we already want to give.
Click to expand...
We don’t sign players to sell them on. We’re not Spurs
 
JPBB said:
Your valuation simply does not make any sense.

1. Firstly we know you can afford £160m. You can probably afford £300m
2. You have set the market price high with £100m for the beautiful Jack. Kane is clearly a more valuable player
3. Thirdly despite what many of you are saying, we don't need to sell. Yes, the debt is massive but it is well structured and manageable.
4. Does Kane want to go? Yes, of course. But if he goes on strike until August - so what? In the end he will have to start playing again or he is not in the England squad and he does not get his dream move to United next summer.
5. Three years on his contract means he is still very sellable next year
6. We'll need replacement players - a striker is £60m maybe more now they know we have cash. Plus we hope to buy a few more so we have a good chance of one them becoming a superstar that you can buy in three years (see Bale's money)
7. We want a nice little profit on the deal
8. So £60m for a striker, a few more at £20-40m each and some profit plus the uplift/tax because it is City seems to equal £160m not £100m

One other point that no-one has mentioned is that, maybe, and this is just supposition, the new stadium naming rights could be contingent on Kane staying.
Click to expand...
FFS Mr Levy just let him go, you can spunk all the money on another load of shite.

It is you into Daniel?
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
You’ll get a few of the Transfer Forum weirdos moaning at you for your post but you’re not wrong.

Paying £100+m for a player that will not get any better nor any faster (and we’ll never be able to sell him on) at his age now, is daft behaviour from City.

Three figure sums should be reserved for the excellent 22-25 year olds who you know you’re going to get a good 6-10 years out of. This bloke could be fucked in the next two years looking at how unathletic and slow he already is and how many injuries he’s had.

The fee is silly and Spurs want more than we already want to give.
Click to expand...
The excellent 22-25 year olds. Who?
Mbappe has said he won't come to us.
Haaland has shown no inkling he wants to come to us, or infact anywhere right now.
Kane wants to come to us. Kane guarantees goals for about 3-4 seasons. Goals win trophies.
So on the basis those 22-25 year olds aren't available, but a guaranteed goal machine is, and wants us, what else are we to do to improve the team where it needs improving?
 
JPBB said:
Your valuation simply does not make any sense.

1. Firstly we know you can afford £160m. You can probably afford £300m
2. You have set the market price high with £100m for the beautiful Jack. Kane is clearly a more valuable player
3. Thirdly despite what many of you are saying, we don't need to sell. Yes, the debt is massive but it is well structured and manageable.
4. Does Kane want to go? Yes, of course. But if he goes on strike until August - so what? In the end he will have to start playing again or he is not in the England squad and he does not get his dream move to United next summer.
5. Three years on his contract means he is still very sellable next year
6. We'll need replacement players - a striker is £60m maybe more now they know we have cash. Plus we hope to buy a few more so we have a good chance of one them becoming a superstar that you can buy in three years (see Bale's money)
7. We want a nice little profit on the deal
8. So £60m for a striker, a few more at £20-40m each and some profit plus the uplift/tax because it is City seems to equal £160m not £100m

One other point that no-one has mentioned is that, maybe, and this is just supposition, the new stadium naming rights could be contingent on Kane staying.
Click to expand...
Good grief
 
JPBB said:
Your valuation simply does not make any sense.

1. Firstly we know you can afford £160m. You can probably afford £300m
2. You have set the market price high with £100m for the beautiful Jack. Kane is clearly a more valuable player
3. Thirdly despite what many of you are saying, we don't need to sell. Yes, the debt is massive but it is well structured and manageable.
4. Does Kane want to go? Yes, of course. But if he goes on strike until August - so what? In the end he will have to start playing again or he is not in the England squad and he does not get his dream move to United next summer.
5. Three years on his contract means he is still very sellable next year
6. We'll need replacement players - a striker is £60m maybe more now they know we have cash. Plus we hope to buy a few more so we have a good chance of one them becoming a superstar that you can buy in three years (see Bale's money)
7. We want a nice little profit on the deal
8. So £60m for a striker, a few more at £20-40m each and some profit plus the uplift/tax because it is City seems to equal £160m not £100m

One other point that no-one has mentioned is that, maybe, and this is just supposition, the new stadium naming rights could be contingent on Kane staying.
Click to expand...

Your entire post was a suppository.

You're a feeder club to the top clubs and that's what you'll remain. Oh and if Kane leaves you and goes to a club who now hasn't consistently won trophies for 15 years than what the fuck does it say about the state of Spurs?

You're the laughing stock of English football and have been for at least 20 years.

Lads, it's Spurs.
 
All this spurs want 160m will work the other way if we get him for 120/130m media are that thick they’ll say we got a good deal when a good deal really is 100m
 
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.