Harry Kane

[Craig]

The counter argument that last season’s goal and assist stats lend great validity to is that it doesn’t matter if he’s lost a yard, his game’s evolved. That just about holds water now but you can’t keep losing a yard otherwise Shearer would still be playing - at some point you’ve lost too many yards and I think Harry will reach that point way too soon to justify a £100m+ outlay

Yes and he was never quick to start with! I don’t even know what my argument is here. I basically agree with you but also think he’d be brilliant for us. Based on his England form(not goals) he looks like a modern day Fowler by the time we signed him.

 

[Gaz in Zurich]

Haarland

I'd like him too but if his price is too high, then Son would be a good fallback option. Just don't fancy Kane at all, even before last nights display.

 

[give it to gordon]

Everyone, we are all guilty of it.

I'm not lol

 

[Gundog’s Gundog]

Yes and he was never quick to start with! I don’t even know what my argument is here. I basically agree with you but also think he’d be brilliant for us. Based on his England form(not goals) he looks like a modern day Fowler by the time we signed him.

I agree he could be brilliant for us for a season or two and if that brings us two league titles and the CL then it’s hard to argue against the logic of buying him in the short term but long term it’s not so clever.

Signing Harry precludes us from signing Haaland and so one of our big rivals gets a young hungry equally prolific striker with a huge resale value should Barca or Madrid come calling in 4 or 5 years time. Haaland to Chelsea or Utd or Lpool transforms them into genuine rivals. Haaland to City sees us win the league 3 or 4 times on the bounce.

 

[decmancity]

Signing Harry precludes us from signing Haaland and so one of our big rivals gets a young hungry equally prolific striker with a huge resale value should Barca or Madrid come calling in 4 or 5 years time. Haaland to Chelsea or Utd or Lpool transforms them into genuine rivals. Haaland to City sees us win the league 3 or 4 times on the bounce.

Consider a world where Haaland doesn't want to sign for City or Pep/Khaldoon/Sheikh Mansours cat doesn't want him.

 

[chesterbells]

I'd like him too but if his price is too high, then Son would be a good fallback option. Just don't fancy Kane at all, even before last nights display.

I know what you’re saying.

 

[leo_city]

Fair enough.

I have never spent £100m+++ on a player previously myself. But let's just say if it was my money, I'd be feeling a bit nervous about it.

Like you'e buying a car which gets rave reviews and you go for a test drive and it misfires badly and has no power, but the seller says don't worry it must just be having an off day.

Yeah no doubt, spending big comes with a caution. I hope whatever the club do it's well thought out because we trust them.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Signing Harry precludes us from signing Haaland and so one of our big rivals gets a young hungry equally prolific striker with a huge resale value should Barca or Madrid come calling in 4 or 5 years time. Haaland to Chelsea or Utd or Lpool transforms them into genuine rivals. Haaland to City sees us win the league 3 or 4 times on the bounce.

When you put it like that, it's a complete no-brainer really isn't it. Haaland has to the absolute top, top, must sign at all costs, priority. If Haaland doesn't move then OK fair enough, but if another club sign him just because they are prepared to pay whereas we were not? You'd have to seriously question whether we'd done the right thing IMO.

 

[Mad 4 It]

Consider a world where Haaland doesn't want to sign for City or Pep/Khaldoon/Sheikh Mansours cat doesn't want him.

I understand what you are saying but why wouldn’t he want to sign for City. Everything is in place for him unlike other clubs with a revolving door of managers.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]