Harry Kane

[BlueBrain]

You don't pay all that money to get a sure-thing penalty taker. Kane is a short term answer and his injury record is troubling. Haaland being younger, and fitter (and better!) makes him much better value for money.

Who said were paying for just that? The guy scores 20+ goals a season. Kane is a top3 striker in the world right now.

 

[bluebreeze]

It seems from reading this thread, one of the main objections to buying Kane is his age.

Well, I can remember many 'wtf' comments about 8 years ago on this forum when City bought another 28 year old. The
28 year old is called Fernandinho. That didn't turn out too bad, did it?

Kane is Premier league proven, Mbappe and Haaland aren't.

No brainer for me.

 

[G-Star Medium Rare]

Kane would be at best a short term stop gap. I'd say pay no more than £50m with a 2 year contract on a maximum of 80% KDBs salary.

 

[Coatigan]

It seems from reading this thread, one of the main objections to buying Kane is his age.

And price.

And injury record (ankles).

Lack of any resale or longevity value.

Some say lack of pace too not that that is what he relies on.

Other than that, all good.

 

[OrigamiNinja]

5 years isn't my idea of short term? His injury record is hugely exaggerated.
Haaland would be a better option,but that doesn't make Kane a bad one.

Some have been spoiled with our best players staying with us over the years. It has skewed their view and given them the belief that a player spending 10+ years with a single club is the norm. It isn't. I don't believe for a second that Haaland spends the rest of his career with us if we sign him, and if we got 5 years out of him we would have done well. Of course, after 5 years of Haaland we can get a fee back on his sale, which we wont get with Kane. Its whether or not the club determine this is a deciding factor in who we drop £100m+ on.

 

[richards30]

 

[Keeper!]

And price.

And injury record (ankles).

Lack of any resale or longevity value.

Some say lack of pace too not that that is what he relies on.

Other than that, all good.

Both Haaland and Kane have positives/negatives, but both would be great signings and improve us considerably.

Haaland, young exciting talent, could be our striker for the next 10 years, against, dealing with a known 'bad" agent, unproven in the Premier league, a big lad already at 20, will he have issues later in his career?

Kane, proven top quality Premier league player, England Captain, great penalty taker, against, questionable ankles, dealing with Daniel Levy and one that's not mentioned often, 'Arry is a London boy through and through, will heading norf be good for him?

 

[richards30]

Seems Arry is desperate to come!

 

[rickmcfc]

Offer £65m plus Jesus. One time offer valid for 2 weeks. If they don’t respond walk away.

 

[Asa's left peg]

I don't think the club are too bothered about resale prices for our first teamers tbf. Could even have got more for Sane, if that's all we are bothered about. Its the reason why we don't get big fees like Chelsea- to us, they have run their course. I think the clubs first consideration is whether they 'fit and then if they can justify the cost spead over the time of their contract.

It will be fascinating to see this unfold. IF both want to come, seeing Haarland and Cains agents trying to reduce the fee Dortmund and Spurs want, will be interesting.