Harry Kane

city2 said:
Can’t see this transfer going through until the last week of the window, levy will fuck us over or try to. They are massively in debt and need the money because no other player they have on the books will generate anything near Kane,s price. And this manageable debt is another fucking joke which the rags have been getting away with for years, manageable debt means it’s coming down not increasing every pissing year.
Click to expand...
Again I don't see how dragging this transfer this the last week benefits Sprus in any way shape or form. They'll need to not only replace him but now any club they try to negotiate with know they got loads of money to spend and will definitely jack up the price. The sooner it get done the better for everyone involved.
 
JPBB said:
Your valuation simply does not make any sense.

1. Firstly we know you can afford £160m. You can probably afford £300m
2. You have set the market price high with £100m for the beautiful Jack. Kane is clearly a more valuable player
3. Thirdly despite what many of you are saying, we don't need to sell. Yes, the debt is massive but it is well structured and manageable.
4. Does Kane want to go? Yes, of course. But if he goes on strike until August - so what? In the end he will have to start playing again or he is not in the England squad and he does not get his dream move to United next summer.
5. Three years on his contract means he is still very sellable next year
6. We'll need replacement players - a striker is £60m maybe more now they know we have cash. Plus we hope to buy a few more so we have a good chance of one them becoming a superstar that you can buy in three years (see Bale's money)
7. We want a nice little profit on the deal
8. So £60m for a striker, a few more at £20-40m each and some profit plus the uplift/tax because it is City seems to equal £160m not £100m

One other point that no-one has mentioned is that, maybe, and this is just supposition, the new stadium naming rights could be contingent on Kane staying.
Click to expand...

There is no way we can afford £160m and be within FFP. zero chance.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
We’ve signed loads of players and sold them on. And we sensibly don’t usually pay fees at this level for 27 year olds neither, or at all.

But I’m not thinking in terms of City and what we usually do, I’m thinking in terms of the fee and what you’d expect to come with it:
- Long term
- Room for development and improvement over the course of the contact from the player
- Chance to sell on and earn something back (even if we opt not to)
- No worries over injury history

He doesn’t tick any of these boxes. He’s 27, he’s as good as he ever will be, his best years might even be behind him, he’s had some big injuries to his ankles and he’s looking less athletic as he’s getting into his late 20s because of them.

He literally just ticks the ‘scores goals’ box. I wouldn’t put that above any fee paid for the likes of Pogba or van Dijk.
Click to expand...
We need a striker, a deadly finisher, to replace an all time great. Kane is the best man available in this window. The club clearly think so too and think we can afford it.
It really is that simple. Anything else is subjective projection and supposition.
If there hadn’t been a Euros this summer than I suspect many of the doubters wouldn’t be so triggered by recency bias about the player who won the Golden Boot and Playmaker awards only 10 or so weeks ago
 
grunge said:
There is no way we can afford £160m and be within FFP. zero chance.
Click to expand...

Transfer fees and FFP are really not a big deal.

If we spend £260m on Grealish and Kane, the transfer fees work out to £52m a year for the next 5 years. It's more of a future issue.

We can raise that much selling CFG players or academy players ever summer. Angelino, Harrison, Sancho and Nmecha alone work out to £50m.

IMO the wage bill getting very fat is more of an issue. Kane's wages replace Aguero's, so that's taken care of, but Grealish is likely to be on much more than Bernardo (if Bernardo even goes) and new contracts for Ederson, Stones and Sterling will push it even higher.

But the accountants know what they're doing.
 
leo_citeh said:
Would you, as the chairman of a (sort of) new project be known as the guy to sell their most important player? Especially when he's already responsible for half of the fuck ups. No matter the denial, he's part of the reason it's got to the point where the best player wants gone. Let's not forget, our other target, Jack Grealish, could have been a Spurs player for merely £25m, Spurs initial offer was £3m and Josh Onomah, so yeah. Definitely not a big spender is Levy, but he has made sales of important players before to reset and restart Spurs project, although this would be the worst of it because it's Kane.
Click to expand...
i don’t think they will have a choice but to sell. Not only do Spurs have a lot of bills to pay out, remember the new ground cost the best part of a billion pounds to build, but if they make Kane stay they have a player on their books who doesn’t want to be there and will be telling every person who will listen at White Hart Lane what a lying twat Daniel Levy is.
 
domalino said:
Transfers and FFP are really not a big deal.

If we spend £260m on Grealish and Kane, the transfer fees work out to £52m a year for the next 5 years.

We can raise that much selling CFG players or academy players ever summer. Angelino, Harrison, Sancho and Nmecha alone work out to £50m.

Kane's wages replace Aguero's, so that's taken care of.
Click to expand...
What about the players we want to sign next year though. £260m stresses our future investments too. Suspect if this comes off, this is Pep saying these are the players I want for my final 2 years and I wont demand much next year
 
LongsightM13 said:
We need a striker, a deadly finisher, to replace an all time great. Kane is the best man available in this window. The club clearly think so too and think we can afford it.
It really is that simple. Anything else is subjective projection and supposition.
If there hadn’t been a Euros this summer than I suspect many of the doubters wouldn’t be so triggered by recency bias about the player who won the Golden Boot and Playmaker awards only 10 or so weeks ago
Click to expand...
I’m not sure this is the place for common sense and realism mate.
 
domalino said:
Transfer fees and FFP are really not a big deal.

If we spend £260m on Grealish and Kane, the transfer fees work out to £52m a year for the next 5 years. It's more of a future issue.

We can raise that much selling CFG players or academy players ever summer. Angelino, Harrison, Sancho and Nmecha alone work out to £50m.

IMO the wage bill getting very fat is more of an issue. Kane's wages replace Aguero's, so that's taken care of, but Grealish is likely to be on much more than Bernardo (if Bernardo even goes) and new contracts for Ederson, Stones and Sterling will push it even higher.

But the accountants know what they're doing.
Click to expand...

Even with amortisation there's no real chance without selling a ton of players. when you think we're already doing it for all the other players we have bought in on the books.

And that's assuming the selling team is willing to take payments. else the money has to come from somewhere to be amortised.
 
JPBB said:
Shhh. £160m for a 28 year old Kane will be Levy's greatest deal.

In the end, everyone will see sense and the deal wont happen.

Maybe next year.
Click to expand...
That will never happen. Do the deal and we all can move on. You will aboslutely not get £160m or anywhere near. If Chelsea want to pay that, then good luck to them,
 
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