Harry Kane

[jimharri]

I think the Kane ship has sailed as far as we are concerned.

Agreed. But imagine a front two of Haaland and Kane!

We'd need them, though, with the way our defence is playing this season!

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Still think we should have broken the bank for him and paid what they wanted because he is worth it. Great player. If it were my money and I was on the board I would have put the Grealish money into the deal and some and not bothered with that deal to secure Kane

 

[Dave El Magico]

Still think we should have broken the bank for him and paid what they wanted because he is worth it. Great player. If it were my money and I was on the board I would have put the Grealish money into the deal and some and not bothered with that deal to secure Kane

I wouldn’t disagree that he is a very good player and a great goal scorer, but I still think that we got a much better deal with Haaland. Kane is 29, Haaland 22. Levy apparently wanted more than double what we paid for Haaland. I think that there are greater things to come from Erling and even if he moved on after 5 years, we would recover a handsome profit.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

I wouldn’t disagree that he is a very good player and a great goal scorer, but I still think that we got a much better deal with Haaland. Kane is 29, Haaland 22. Levy apparently wanted more than double what we paid for Haaland. I think that there are greater things to come from Erling and even if he moved on after 5 years, we would recover a handsome profit.

I do not say it should have been at the expense of or instead of Haaland. Maybe should have been instead of Grealish

 

[Mr Blue Moon]

Still think we should have broken the bank for him and paid what they wanted because he is worth it. Great player. If it were my money and I was on the board I would have put the Grealish money into the deal and some and not bothered with that deal to secure Kane

I’m relieved that we have a board that has a better understanding of the football business than you do

 

[Dave El Magico]

I do not say it should have been at the expense of or instead of Haaland. Maybe should have been instead of Grealish

I know that you didn’t say at the expense of Haaland, but do we need 2 players like that? My opinion is that we don’t, especially as Haaland will possibly get supported more in the future by Alvarez.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Agreed. But imagine a front two of Haaland and Kane!

We'd need them, though, with the way our defence is playing this season!

I'd rather have Haaland and Alvarez. The latter could give 'Arry twenty yards start and get to the other set of goals before him.

 

[jimharri]

I'd rather have Haaland and Alvarez. The latter could give 'Arry twenty yards start and get to the other set of goals before him.

I hate to think what the RDAH meedya would say about that!

 

[eastmanc]

Agreed. But imagine a front two of Haaland and Kane!

We'd need them, though, with the way our defence is playing this season!

Very rare do we play with a two up front although Kane is more of a number 10 nowadays.

 

[Kippax77]

I must be the only one on here who thinks he a self centred muppet.
We don't need him and never have.
Personnel glory is what he is all about.
Not a team player