And now we can't find the money for Kane without selling, that's what I was answering to
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
richards30
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2009
- Messages
- 27,913
Agree. I'd be very surprised if there's a Plan B, or even time to sign an alternative, with the Spurs snake oil salesman obviously content to run the clock down. If, however, the deal goes tits-up, it won't just be us left with egg on our faces. Levy will have an unsettled, demotivated player on his hands who already appears to have burned all his bridges with the fans. You'd think that both parties, therefore, would be sufficiently savvy to get it over the line.
it will be a monumental fuck up if we dont get a top class striker this summer!
Brightwell Bros.
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,515
We did the Grealish deal first because, whether we like it or not, the people who run City don't see signings as check-lists you do in order of priority. Grealish was signed to improve us for the next 4 - 6 years, and in that time ideally help us win 3 - 4 leagues, a handful of cups and, hopefully, one CL. We will also sign a striker, but Kane is our number one target and will take longer to organize. If both are available we will sort other things out.If that was the case, why did we do the Grealish deal first?
Grealish had his release clause and we could do that deal at any time.
To me a striker was a far more important deal for us to complete first.
If after completing the Kane deal and we had the funds, sign Grealish.
Tugay One Cup
Well-Known Member
And now we can't find the money for Kane without selling, that's what I was answering to
Is it a question of money or squad space? Saw an article or two yesterday but didn't feel much like reading.
It's not as black and white as that though imo. They don't "have" to sell Kane in the sense that their survival as a club depends on it, but I suspect missing out on circa £130m in the current climate, potential disharmony in the squad, a divided fan base, uncertainty for the new manager etc are hardly ideal for Spurs either.But he is the one in the bargaining position , only IF Spurs have to sell Kane is that the opposite.
150m GBP question!!Is it a question of money or squad space? Saw an article or two yesterday but didn't feel much like reading.
it was reported Fernandinho himself offered not asking for loyalty payment when we were in negotiation with Sahtar and that was around 4m euros or pounds back around 8 years ago?What sort of figure would we be looking at for a loyalty bonus? I see them mentioned whenever it comes to handing in a transfer request but I have no idea if we're talking tens of millions or some nearly expired Dominos vouchers.
I guess 8 years later a player with a status of Kane being one of the top star of PL it would be much more, also I guess depends on how long he still has left on the contract etc.
Nicholas van Whatsisface
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Dec 2007
- Messages
- 2,717
And now we can't find the money for Kane without selling, that's what I was answering to
You don’t know that mate - none of us do.
but I have no idea if we're talking tens of millions or some nearly expired Dominos vouchers.
These two values are about the same; dominos is that bloody expensive these days.
If it’s squad space why can’t the sign him and tell Bernardo you want to go so you’re not in the squad so find a club quick in this WC yearIs it a question of money or squad space? Saw an article or two yesterday but didn't feel much like reading.