Harry Kane

[ONTHERUNWITHTHAKSIN]

Whooaaah, nothing wrong with the old Mk3 1300L 1971 :)

Furry dice optional

 

[FantasyIreland]

Personally I would prefer to save £50m for emergencies and buy Bamford or even Jiminez instead.

We need world class,we have a bumper pack of false 9's for that 'emergency' scenario you prefer.

 

[waspish]

Feeling Sancho rather go to a Chelsea and move back to where he lived and family are..

 

[BillyShears]

I think that United supporters are mistaking the exceptions (Maguire/Sanchez/Fred) for the rule.

Kane doesn't want to join United and has made his preference for City clear to City and to Spurs.

 

[Gabriel]

Haaland has youth on his side but Kane has wealth of experience playing in England. When I see Haaland score in Germany, I'm often struck by how poor the defending is; he's a giant standing in a luminous shirt for crying out loud, yet there are times when there are no defenders anywhere near him. Now, that's partly down to his ability to find space but it's also down to the game in Germany being much more open. Not sure he'd find/get that freedom in England. DIfficult choice.

 

[LongsightM13]

You're always good for a laugh.

Has to be on the WUM

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I doubt we will sign either Kane or Harland. i think Pep will persist with what hes got and give Ferran and Foden more time up front. My personal choice would be Harland as he offers better value for money given his age.

 

[BlueBrain]

I think that United supporters are mistaking the exceptions (Maguire/Sanchez/Fred) for the rule.

Kane doesn't want to join United and has made his preference for City clear to City and to Spurs.

Let's goooo

 

[OccupiedPalestineBlues]

I take resale to mean potentially selling the player in the future, not them running their contract down.

A player is an asset and will have a market value throughtheir contract.

If Haaland or Kane both signed a 5 year deal at City and wanted to leave after 3 seasons, Haaland would probably command the bigger fee due to his age and future potential.

I assume that’s the argument a lot of people are making as well. Hence, Kane’s age being brought up in the same argument.

The point is that the price paid for a player (purchase fee, signing on bonus, agents fee, taxes etc.) doesn’t take any account of a ‘sell on’ fee because a sell on fee isn’t tangible / no reliance can be placed on one.
The player has a value as an asset and, with agreement from the player, you can sell the player while the contract still has time to run, and thus realise the value of that asset, but it’s not a profit because in selling the player you’ve lost the asset.
So called ‘sell on’ fees as therefore not profit, merely the movement of a value from the asset column and into the cash column.

 

[give it to gordon]

if Kane chose is rags or spurs might as well stay at spurs