Harry Kane

[Stoned Rose]

I’ve worked on bids in the 100’s of millions,
I’m reasonably competent in Crystal Ball analysis, risk management is my stock in trade.
I’ll spell it out for you:
You buy or effectively lease a player for a term. The only value the leased item has is it’s cost on the books - generally the purchase cost + maintenance cost annualised so that a player with say £250M cost over 5 years has a £50M annual cost.
That asset has a value set against it on the books (in the P&L) which generally reduces, but sometimes increases (as the assets market value moves) but which always does inescapably ends up at £0 at the expiration of the contract.

You come across as being able to count your fingers so I can’t get what you don’t understand about that?
Tell me where I’m supposedly wrong or stop harassing me with puerile nonsense.

And for the record and your education, if we buy Haarland, or Kane or whoever, on say a 5 year contract, the contract we consider in the purchase arrangement is always completed in 5 years.
The age of the player doesn’t come into the equation (other than considering fitness for purpose), the cost of the player, the length of the contract and the players market value are the only factors but at the end of the term all players, it doesn’t matter who they are or how old they are or are not, are worth £0 in the books and also in practice.

If that doesn’t accord with business practices in your world then you’re living in a different reality.

Interesting exchanges these, lads.

 

[Matt.D]

Something that I was more or less aware of about Kane, but which has just come into sharp focus for me. Kane has substantially more assists than any of the other leading goalscorers, with the single exception of Fernandes (he's ahead of him, but it's not so startling). I'm not even sure that Haaland competes with him on that. Of course, Haaland is a goalscoring beast, and I'd still prefer to have him (if he's available) on grounds of age alone. He's also extremely strong, and would not be bullied by PL defenders. But Kane would absolutely thrive in sky blue. There's no doubt about it.
I do suspect that the club are looking at shelling out about £100 million, though. (Or someone going the other way, but who'd want to?) You may say, mad in these Covid times, but Levy will hold out for it. A leopard doesn't change his spots.

I don’t think anyone will get him for £100m, even with covid.

 

[mosssideblue]

Don't give up the day job.

He's not old enough to be working

 

[Nails]

Spot the difference.
View attachment 17611View attachment 17612
There is none. Both have a donkey head.

Child.

 

[sir baconface]

I’ve worked on bids in the 100’s of millions,
I’m reasonably competent in Crystal Ball analysis, risk management is my stock in trade.
I’ll spell it out for you:
You buy or effectively lease a player for a term. The only value the leased item has is it’s cost on the books - generally the purchase cost + maintenance cost annualised so that a player with say £250M cost over 5 years has a £50M annual cost.
That asset has a value set against it on the books (in the P&L) which generally reduces, but sometimes increases (as the assets market value moves) but which always does inescapably ends up at £0 at the expiration of the contract.

You come across as being able to count your fingers so I can’t get what you don’t understand about that?
Tell me where I’m supposedly wrong or stop harassing me with puerile nonsense.

And for the record and your education, if we buy Haarland, or Kane or whoever, on say a 5 year contract, the contract we consider in the purchase arrangement is always completed in 5 years.
The age of the player doesn’t come into the equation (other than considering fitness for purpose), the cost of the player, the length of the contract and the players market value are the only factors but at the end of the term all players, it doesn’t matter who they are or how old they are or are not, are worth £0 in the books and also in practice.

If that doesn’t accord with business practices in your world then you’re living in a different reality.

You do realise we were talking about up-front transfer value, not amortisation principles? You appear to have become confused in your excitement. Or maybe it was an attempt to cover your tracks.

I repeat: All things being equal, who costs more in transfer fee: the older or the younger player?

Straight answer please. No whimpering about harassment (haha) this time and spare us the four paragraphs of bluster.

 

[Gumzy97]

I reckon 100 mill or 110 with add ons

 

[simon23]

I’d guess that Dortmund have refused to negotiate on Haaland this summer and we don’t fancy are chances in the auction next summer - perhaps Haaland is nailed on for Bayern?

Signing Kane would be a huge coup for us and with him I can’t see anybody taking the title from us. Interesting that Kane said in his interview with Neville that’s he feels he’s got almost another career ahead of him and he can go to another level - he can only achieve that here under Pep imo.

The ambition Kane’s showed in that interview and in his actions by going public makes me very excited to have him, plus his comments on KDB made it clear that it’s City he wants.

Why woudlnt we fancy our chances in any auction.....we are a top top attraction.

This is why blocking ourselves off from Haaland by buying Kane makes no sense long term to me

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I’ve worked on bids in the 100’s of millions,
I’m reasonably competent in Crystal Ball analysis, risk management is my stock in trade.
I’ll spell it out for you:
You buy or effectively lease a player for a term. The only value the leased item has is it’s cost on the books - generally the purchase cost + maintenance cost annualised so that a player with say £250M cost over 5 years has a £50M annual cost.
That asset has a value set against it on the books (in the P&L) which generally reduces, but sometimes increases (as the assets market value moves) but which always does inescapably ends up at £0 at the expiration of the contract.

You come across as being able to count your fingers so I can’t get what you don’t understand about that?
Tell me where I’m supposedly wrong or stop harassing me with puerile nonsense.

And for the record and your education, if we buy Haarland, or Kane or whoever, on say a 5 year contract, the contract we consider in the purchase arrangement is always completed in 5 years.
The age of the player doesn’t come into the equation (other than considering fitness for purpose), the cost of the player, the length of the contract and the players market value are the only factors but at the end of the term all players, it doesn’t matter who they are or how old they are or are not, are worth £0 in the books and also in practice.

If that doesn’t accord with business practices in your world then you’re living in a different reality.

From that little diatribe, I can see those £100M deals are not related to football transfers!

 

[Stoned Rose]

I reckon 100 mill or 110 with add ons

This.

 

[Coatigan]

I’d guess that Dortmund have refused to negotiate on Haaland this summer and we don’t fancy are chances in the auction next summer - perhaps Haaland is nailed on for Bayern?

Signing Kane would be a huge coup for us and with him I can’t see anybody taking the title from us. Interesting that Kane said in his interview with Neville that’s he feels he’s got almost another career ahead of him and he can go to another level - he can only achieve that here under Pep imo.

The ambition Kane’s showed in that interview and in his actions by going public makes me very excited to have him, plus his comments on KDB made it clear that it’s City he wants.

Dortmund refusing to negotiate doesn't mean very much. If Haaland wants to leave they have to. If Haaland wanted to come, the club would do it, and would take the time it takes. And the agent would do his bit. Even if Haaland wasn't entirely convinced, with the window yet to open, the club would probably have a good go at convincing him.

Regardless of what I think of either of them, if the club are going for Kane, it is because they want Kane. Haaland's preference, 'demands' and Dortmund's stance, if not favourable, may be secondary, but timo we would not be going for Kane this early, if we didn't flat out want him.