You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Harry Kane
- Thread starter Super Joey Hart
- Start date
KennyG
Well-Known Member
Id be more worried about Spurs having a competent scout :)
LucahArchie10
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 May 2013
- Messages
- 2,581
1 other thing for certain is Kane wouldn't miss a fucking penalty although the bent cnuts wouldn't give us as many???I can't disagree with a single word of this. I am not against Harry Kane at all and I do not see the relevance of the fact that Harry Kane has not won a trophy. Harry Kane would win the golden boot every year would win trophies by the bucket load if he were to come to City. You are, however, right that many prefer Haaland and I am one of them. That's all there is too it: Haaland first choice, Mbappe (highly, highly unlikely) and Harry Kane a very strong third choice. We can't go wrong with any of them.
Kane in a City team is taking our game to another level, Haaland & Mbappa also move the team massively forward but I just dont see Mbappa coming no matter what we throw at him
Kane or Haaland I'm not fust both tremendous players
applecentral
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 May 2011
- Messages
- 1,566
Kane wouldn’t be my choice
1. A huge transfer fee for a player with dodgy ankles. Levy will expect an absolute fortune for him. With his recent injury record I wouldn’t want the club to spend probably 120-150m for him.
2. I don’t think his style would suit how we play. At Spurs he is the biggest fish in a murky pond. At City he will be just a good player.
3. He has won fuck all. That’s not his fault but our squad are all winners and Kane has won nowt. A winner is a great asset to a club. A player that knows what’s needed to win major titles and has the determination to make sure he is always ready to perform at the highest level. A team player. Kane is used to being the main man. He wouldn’t be that at City..
As good as he is its a no from me.
1. A huge transfer fee for a player with dodgy ankles. Levy will expect an absolute fortune for him. With his recent injury record I wouldn’t want the club to spend probably 120-150m for him.
2. I don’t think his style would suit how we play. At Spurs he is the biggest fish in a murky pond. At City he will be just a good player.
3. He has won fuck all. That’s not his fault but our squad are all winners and Kane has won nowt. A winner is a great asset to a club. A player that knows what’s needed to win major titles and has the determination to make sure he is always ready to perform at the highest level. A team player. Kane is used to being the main man. He wouldn’t be that at City..
As good as he is its a no from me.
Semper aggressus
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Sep 2019
- Messages
- 6,449
- Team supported
- Manchester City
I think there are good arguments why we would be better not signing Kane, but the fact he’s never won a trophy isn‘t one of them. If anything that’d be a good reason to sign him as he’d be highly motivated to put that right with us.
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 18,391
- Team supported
- FC Zurich (and city of course)
Good to see the 'yes' vote mirroring the percentage of the season he doesn't spend injured. No.
Some passionate viewpoints on this thread.
My tuppenceworth is we will never sign Kane, rightly, because the outlay would be too high.
City have a keen eye on value and balancing it out across the squad. This strategy works. See the PSG win for evidence. One super expensive superstar injured = they couldn't compete with a balanced squad. Kane would cost £150m for maximum 4 seasons of an increasingly injury prone player. That's 2.5x our record signing. There's no way City touch that with a 100 foot bargepole. Thanks be to God.
My tuppenceworth is we will never sign Kane, rightly, because the outlay would be too high.
City have a keen eye on value and balancing it out across the squad. This strategy works. See the PSG win for evidence. One super expensive superstar injured = they couldn't compete with a balanced squad. Kane would cost £150m for maximum 4 seasons of an increasingly injury prone player. That's 2.5x our record signing. There's no way City touch that with a 100 foot bargepole. Thanks be to God.