Harry Kane

[southamptonblue]

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.

Firstly we haven't lost a good player to Spain before, and if Haaland wanted to, he could run down his contract and go for nothing anyway?
Haaland doesn't guarantee any titles, let alone 3 or 4 on the bounce.....maybe Madrid thought the same with Jovic or Chelsea with Werner after they topped the scoring chart in Germany ;)

 

[domalino]

There have been 7 transfers over €100m in history.

Mbappe
Neymar
Hazard
Coutinho
Joao Felix
Dembele
Griezmann

2 of those have been complete failures. 2 have been massively disappointing. 1 hasn't paid off and will need to step up massively in order to and the 2 PSG players have been excellent but still didn't get them the CL they wanted.

I feel very nervous about the club spending all that money on a player who is looking really sluggish and/or injured.

It felt quite risky based on his injury history already but now if he plays like this the whole tournament it seems like it would be mad.

 

[Mad 4 It]

There have been 7 transfers over €100m in history.

Mbappe
Neymar
Hazard
Coutinho
Joao Felix
Dembele
Griezmann

2 of those have been complete failures. 2 have been massively disappointing. 1 hasn't paid off and will need to step up massively in order to and the 2 PSG players have been excellent but still didn't get them the CL they wanted.

I feel very nervous about the club spending all that money on a player who is looking really sluggish and/or injured.

It felt quite risky based on his injury history already but now if he plays like this the whole tournament it seems like it would be mad.

Yes totally agree, not worth the gamble for me

 

[domalino]

Yes totally agree, not worth the gamble for me

Haaland is a gamble as well, but I feel like he

1) is in great form so he's carrying all that confidence to help him hit the ground running.

2) He is so young that he has more time to come good. If for whatever reason he took 18 months to get used to Pep and the team before he hit his absolute best, or he got a big injury he would be 22. If Kane took time to get going he would be pushing 30.

 

[David Silva]

Anyone ever seen Kane play well in a big game?

 

[citymad]

Don’t think he ever had pace. That’s not his game.

He's no Haaland thats for sure.

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

Harry Kane is a proven Premier League goal scorer and will score bag loads for us. However, many of those goals will come against teams outside of the top six. For me, in the current depressed market due to Coronavirus with his ability, age and injury record taken into consideration, he’s worth about £80-£85 million. The remaining £15-£65 million is based on English player tax, press hype and a stubborn inability of everyone outside of the club to understand we don’t pay silly amounts for players. Twelve years on and everybody thinks our club is immune from the effects of Coronavirus and we are going to be a meal ticket for Spurs or Villa whilst selling off our own players at less than market value.

As domalino pointed out, only 7 times has a club paid over £100 million for a player. I’ll be amazed if Manchester City or anybody else do so this summer. The clubs that have paid those sums are in a mess on the whole.

 

[bluenova]

There have been 7 transfers over €100m in history.

Mbappe
Neymar
Hazard
Coutinho
Joao Felix
Dembele
Griezmann

2 of those have been complete failures. 2 have been massively disappointing. 1 hasn't paid off and will need to step up massively in order to and the 2 PSG players have been excellent but still didn't get them the CL they wanted.

I feel very nervous about the club spending all that money on a player who is looking really sluggish and/or injured.

It felt quite risky based on his injury history already but now if he plays like this the whole tournament it seems like it would be mad.

Clearly, if you want quality, you need to be paying around the €200m mark ;)

 

[Phil Mitchell Foden]

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.

This is precisely the worst thing about this transfer for me. Haaland is a future balon dor winner, and we'd be leaving a free run at him for a direct rival, in favour of someone who could be the next Alexis Sanchez.

Makes me feel ill. If Haaland moves elsewhere, fair enough. Lukaku or Kane are decent stand ins, but Haaland has to be priority. We've lost our marbles if he isn't.

 

[I'm Blue]

Anyone ever seen Kane play well in a big game?

I’ve asked if Kane is a big game player before and unsurprisingly it usually gets ignored.
For the fee it’s a question worth asking.
If Harry Kane is the answer, we’re asking the wrong question.