Harry Kane

Calv_from_the_frog said:
1. Y'see, that where you f*cked up with FFP. Its doesn't stop well fiunded clubs from going under, but it does prevent them being able to pay silly fees for players like the one you want.
2. Yes, you're probably right. Then again, Jack is 3 years younger and we can probably do without a CF if push comes to shove (not that we'd want to, I agree).
3. No idea, you'd know better than me, but I'd be astounded if - with City having felt the pinch and lost 120m - Spurs hadn't lost an awful lot more (no matter how well structured your debt is).
4. True enough. Striking is not sustainable for him or you.
5. Next year he'll be 29. I'd say you'd get 60-70m tops. We can cope with the 60m depreciation given CL participation & other prize money. You probably can't (as much).
6. Fact is that there's a glut of strikers at the moment (as proven by our focus on Kane). You'd be able to get 2 or 3 signings tops with the Kane money.
7. As he's 'one of your own' isn't any money a profit ?
8. You'll get 120m max. No more. Probably no less.

The fact is that you're doing a bit of a 'Messi' with Kane. 120m would be fantastic money (especially in the current climate) but you've had a look at ONE other transfer and figured that he's worth more than that.

Barca paid the price by having to get rid of pretty much half their team to keep Messi, you'll have a player who'll get you no nearer to winning stuff on still massive wages, pissed off at having not won 'owt, and rapidly depreciating in value.

We walked away from Koulibaly. We walked away from Kounde. We bought Dias (leaving Koulibaly & Kounde frustrated at their current clubs and looking for moves still).

It hurts having your players go on strike to leave. I remember when Tevez did it. But you're left having to make the best out of a bad situation, and this - unfortunately - is the best you're gonna get.
Click to expand...

Also, regarding naming rights, you could always name it The Harry Kane Memorial Stadium.... (I'm kidding, I'm kidding)...
 
Calv_from_the_frog said:
1. Y'see, that where you f*cked up with FFP. Its doesn't stop well fiunded clubs from going under, but it does prevent them being able to pay silly fees for players like the one you want.
2. Yes, you're probably right. Then again, Jack is 3 years younger and we can probably do without a CF if push comes to shove (not that we'd want to, I agree).
3. No idea, you'd know better than me, but I'd be astounded if - with City having felt the pinch and lost 120m - Spurs hadn't lost an awful lot more (no matter how well structured your debt is).
4. True enough. Striking is not sustainable for him or you.
5. Next year he'll be 29. I'd say you'd get 60-70m tops. We can cope with the 60m depreciation given CL participation & other prize money. You probably can't (as much).
6. Fact is that there's a glut of strikers at the moment (as proven by our focus on Kane). You'd be able to get 2 or 3 signings tops with the Kane money.
7. As he's 'one of your own' isn't any money a profit ?
8. You'll get 120m max. No more. Probably no less.

The fact is that you're doing a bit of a 'Messi' with Kane. 120m would be fantastic money (especially in the current climate) but you've had a look at ONE other transfer and figured that he's worth more than that.

Barca paid the price by having to get rid of pretty much half their team to keep Messi, you'll have a player who'll get you no nearer to winning stuff on still massive wages, pissed off at having not won 'owt, and rapidly depreciating in value.

We walked away from Koulibaly. We walked away from Kounde. We bought Dias (leaving Koulibaly & Kounde frustrated at their current clubs and looking for moves still).

It hurts having your players go on strike to leave. I remember when Tevez did it. But you're left having to make the best out of a bad situation, and this - unfortunately - is the best you're gonna get.
Click to expand...
In short, you are saying you can't afford him. I agree. The deal will collapse.
 
grunge said:
Even with amortisation there's no real chance without selling a ton of players. when you think we're already doing it for all the other players we have bought in on the books.

And that's assuming the selling team is willing to take payments. else the money has to come from somewhere to be amortised.
Click to expand...
Where the money comes from doesn't matter for FFP, apart from any interest payments due. The key is the amortisation. New contracts for the likes of Stones and Ederson reduce their costs each year and not only do we get whatever the boom profit is on Angelino, we also lose his amortised cost from when we bought him back.
It's all going to be complicated and impossible to work out without seeing everything on the books, but I'm confident that if City planned to buy players, they knew how they could afford them. That might involve some further sales, but that's probably as much to do with squad size as anything else.
 
InLevyITrust said:
He made Modric and Berbatov stay an extra yeah and made Real pay a world record fee.
Click to expand...

You're embarrassing. Selling is selling. Taking the money is taking the money. Being unable to keep your best players is being unable to keep your best players. The fact that your club vice captain, your talisman, the homegrown golden boy, wants out, should have you burning Levy effigies. Instead you come on an opposition supporter's forum, not just any opposition supporters either but the fucking champions, and peddle this drivel with that username.

Part of me thinks you're an Arsenal fan, no sane grown up adult Spurs fan would behave as embarrassingly as you currently are.
 
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.