mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
It's practically every page.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Harry Kane
- Thread starter Super Joey Hart
- Start date
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.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.
Bluemooner33
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 1,300
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 dimensionalIt'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?
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
Trouble with not buying from a club where officials have had a pop at City and/or the owners leaves us very few options……….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.
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.If we are going to pay 130m then we should get Haaland instead for that kind of money
BillyShears
Well-Known Member
Trouble with not buying from a club where officials have had a pop at City and/or the owners leaves us very few options……….
True to an extent. But wildly inflammatory public comments are reserved for Tebas and the German clowns at Bayern and BVB.
But it is a reasonable deal at 120m plus, Spurs know it and so do We.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.
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.
Bluemooner33
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 1,300
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 tooI 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.
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.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
Bluemooner33
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 1,300
It's going to cost a lot of money for sureIf 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.