Harry Kane

Kippaxpete said:
It is undeniable that Kane is the most potent striker in the Premiership currently. His stats speak for themselves. Equally undeniable is that his signing would transform our goal conversion rate immeasurably. However, am I alone at baulking at the exorbitant figures being bandied about? My greatest concern is that City splurge an obscene amount of cash on the likes of Kane and, by so doing, cement our reputation as the club that 'bought the title' and 'ruined football'. Yes, we all know that is utter bollocks, largely borne out of jealousy and fuelled by lazy journalism, but I'd much rather be able to stick two fingers up to our critics by refusing to be held hostage and signing a significantly cheaper alternative who goes on to prove the doubters wrong. Would it be a gamble and am I guilty of romantic idealism? Yes and yes but if that means we retain a measure of integrity, it's surely a risk worth taking.
Click to expand...
No. Buy what we need.
 
Bluemooner33 said:
Maybe we could get him for a lot less than £200m with us being able to trigger his release clause in 6mths for £65m? i think it was. didn't he grow up a City fan and his dad played for us too, he'd probably stay with us his whole career and any release clause would be huge, 200m+ if he insisted on one
Click to expand...
That photo means nothing. He also played for Leeds, whose fans will tell you he is a Leeds fan.
Haaland won't stay at any club his whole career. Every now and then you get a player who will tour the top leagues in Europe, staying maybe 2-3 years each time. At some point in his career he will play in England, be it us or Chelsea, Spain likely for Madrid, Italy, France and maybe a return to Germany. His agent is the reason. I just hope we are his choice for his stint in the PL.
 
Bluemooner33 said:
Maybe we could get him for a lot less than £200m with us being able to trigger his release clause in 6mths for £65m? i think it was. didn't he grow up a City fan and his dad played for us too, he'd probably stay with us his whole career and any release clause would be huge, 200m+ if he insisted on one
Click to expand...
Why would he stay with us for his whole career?
 
blkswn said:
The only issue there is Haaland would require about 200m and that's without agent fee, his dad wanting a separate cut, his wage demands (about 500k per week) and a release clause inserted in his deal, with rumours of him moving every summer, all media drama aside. We're good not pursuing him.
Click to expand...

Yeah, except all of that is nonsense.
It is no different than old glass ankle harry will only play a season and a half and then he's finished kind of exaggeration.
 
Bluemooner33 said:
Maybe we could get him for a lot less than £200m with us being able to trigger his release clause in 6mths for £65m? i think it was. didn't he grow up a City fan and his dad played for us too, he'd probably stay with us his whole career and any release clause would be huge, 200m+ if he insisted on one
Click to expand...

Yep we won’t have deal with Dortmund just pay the buyout pay agent 20m pay father 20m pay Haaland 400k a week on five year deal all adds up to 220m package! But if agent wants a buyout added and ridiculous wages we won’t touch him!
 
Bluemooner33 said:
Maybe we could get him for a lot less than £200m with us being able to trigger his release clause in 6mths for £65m? i think it was. didn't he grow up a City fan and his dad played for us too, he'd probably stay with us his whole career and any release clause would be huge, 200m+ if he insisted on one
Click to expand...
It's next summer, but that means going a whole season without a recognised 9 again. I personally don't see any issue with that, except there will be lots of games where we'll be calling out for a proper striker. Next year there will be more completion for him, triggering the clause would just be a start, but add the agent fee and his dad's cut/ on signing fee. You're probably still looking at 150m, forget any release clause talk even. Why not spend that on Kane this summer and just address the position. 1 season changes a lot for some players. Remember likes of Andrea Belotti priced at 100m, he's leaving after a few seasons for a mere €20m now. Football market is unfortunately just that volatile and good/bad form changes a lot. Who knows if we even want him next summer, or if he's still that guy?
 
BillyShears said:
Ive thought about Watzke and his comments a lot recently. I think @Roy Munson flagged it for me ages ago that Dortmund would likely never sell to us anyway. Got me thinking. Wonder if the feeling is mutual and we’ve got zero interest in handing a world record fee to a club whose directors continue to publicly call our owners out.
Click to expand...

There is sense in that. By the same logic, Spurs signed that letter to get us kicked out of CL, pushed the ffp narrative etc etc.

The club seem professional to not stoop to a level of pettiness and put the needs and business first. I however would not be in the slightest bit upset if they Did refuse to give clubs money out of principle. Both of them, or any other.
 
Kippaxpete said:
It is undeniable that Kane is the most potent striker in the Premiership currently. His stats speak for themselves. Equally undeniable is that his signing would transform our goal conversion rate immeasurably. However, am I alone at baulking at the exorbitant figures being bandied about? My greatest concern is that City splurge an obscene amount of cash on the likes of Kane and, by so doing, cement our reputation as the club that 'bought the title' and 'ruined football'. Yes, we all know that is utter bollocks, largely borne out of jealousy and fuelled by lazy journalism, but I'd much rather be able to stick two fingers up to our critics by refusing to be held hostage and signing a significantly cheaper alternative who goes on to prove the doubters wrong. Would it be a gamble and am I guilty of romantic idealism? Yes and yes but if that means we retain a measure of integrity, it's surely a risk worth taking.
Click to expand...
It was cemented years ago by a tiny minority of internet knobheads. Most(supporters from other clubs) couldn't care less. The media are scum so you would expect this crap from them and let's be honest, it's done to feed the tiny minority of internet knobheads. Take the piss I say. Football is tribal at the end of the day(at least for now before it gets totally taken over by complaining Tarquins).

You have to remember. The internet knobheads are the same people up FIFA'S/ UAFA'S/ FA's... (insert corrupt organisation) Arses.
 
Coatigan said:
Yeah, except all of that is nonsense.
It is no different than old glass ankle harry will only play a season and a half and then he's finished kind of exaggeration.
Click to expand...
It really isn't, one isn't like the other. Kane isn't carrying all this baggage. You can believe what you want to though.
 
Coatigan said:
There is sense in that. By the same logic, Spurs signed that letter to get us kicked out of CL, pushed the ffp narrative etc etc.

The club seem professional to not stoop to a level of pettiness and put the needs and business first. I however would not be in the slightest bit upset if they Did refuse to give clubs money out of principle. Both of them, or any other.
Click to expand...
We've not had a problem with Levy though have we? In just business terms, we did land Walker just a few seasons back after all. There is business relationship and then there are things outside of that on ownership level which obviously breeds a lot of this nonsense in Prem clubs trying to get us banned. We know who the main instigators are and who just join the bandwagon when it's in full flow.
 
blkswn said:
It's next summer, but that means going a whole season without a recognised 9 again. I personally don't see any issue with that, except there will be lots of games where we'll be calling out for a proper striker. Next year there will be more completion for him, triggering the clause would just be a start, but add the agent fee and his dad's cut/ on signing fee. You're probably still looking at 150m, forget any release clause talk even. Why not spend that on Kane this summer and just address the position. 1 season changes a lot for some players. Remember likes of Andrea Belotti priced at 100m, he's leaving after a few seasons for a mere €20m now. Football market is unfortunately just that volatile and good/bad form changes a lot. Who knows if we even want him next summer, or if he's still that guy?
Click to expand...
I'm not against signing Kane, he's a great player, id prefer Haaland but would be happy with Kane if we can get him, both would make us less one dimensional
 
BillyShears said:
Ive thought about Watzke and his comments a lot recently. I think @Roy Munson flagged it for me ages ago that Dortmund would likely never sell to us anyway. Got me thinking. Wonder if the feeling is mutual and we’ve got zero interest in handing a world record fee to a club whose directors continue to publicly call our owners out.
Click to expand...
Trouble with not buying from a club where officials have had a pop at City and/or the owners leaves us very few options……….
 
the_tevez_wiggle said:
Again this was my point. <£100m is reasonable anything over it isn't the right deal for us. For other clubs like utd they would pay £150 as that's were their goals come from. With us we have 5/6 players capable of 10 goals or over from different areas of the pitch. We are more a unit than a team with 2 star players carrying the team. Foden, kdb, Jesus, sterling gundogan, mahrez, bernado can all score and assist 10 goals or more. Without rodri, dias, stones, etc chipping in, not many teams can boast that.
Click to expand...
But it is a reasonable deal at 120m plus, Spurs know it and so do We.

Who and what are the alternatives?

Haaland would cost a crazy amount and then who genuinely wants Lukaku?

Spurs need cash, we need a striker, the deal will get done.
 
Keeper! said:
I would think the Haaland deal would be a lot more than 130m in total, probably 200m plus with what Haaland Snr and Rialoa would want in fees.
Click to expand...
My thinking was they could lose him for 65million next summer so they might take double now instead but like you say we would have other fee's on top too
 
Bluemooner33 said:
My thinking was they could lose him for 65million next summer so we might take double now instead but like you say we would have other fee's on top too
Click to expand...
If he goes for the clause in January, the agent fees will be double, possibly treble what they are if he went today, and that's even before you get on to wages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top