Harry Kane

[citytill1die84]

As I say- If you genuinely think City will pay more than 50m for Harry ‘the crock’ Kane you are a fool.

You're an absolute melt if u think Kane isn't worth 50m lol we just bought a relegated Ake for 41m we were at the table for Harry fucking Maguire for 70m and u think City wouldn't pay over 50m for Kane lmfao. Get off my page.

 

[doobyedoobye]

It's as alive as the dodo

Someone wants to get it going

 

[Sky Blue]

As if.

 

[HelloCity]

We wouldn’t pay near 200m.

I think we’d try and get him for less though.

 

[lmhblue1]

In what world would our starting bid be £200m lol.

I'd take him for £100m tbh

 

[PJM1891]

200 not happening. Could see it happening at around 150 with the addons 120+30 maybe. Sure he would score for fun in our team, he sure know where the net is only concern is his injury record. Maybe he wouldn't be as injured here as we wouldn't have the same need to rush him back.

 

[MillsyTheMosher]

You're an absolute melt if u think Kane isn't worth 50m lol we just bought a relegated Ake for 41m we were at the table for Harry fucking Maguire for 70m and u think City wouldn't pay over 50m for Kane lmfao. Get off my page.

City don’t want Kane- there’s a reason we don’t want him.

You're an absolute melt if u think Kane isn't worth 50m lol we just bought a relegated Ake for 41m we were at the table for Harry fucking Maguire for 70m and u think City wouldn't pay over 50m for Kane lmfao. Get off my page.

Go on then- what do you think Kane is worth if we bought him this summer ??

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

That’s tomorrow papers sold then

F*ck that.

#buyacoffee

 

[Gabriel]

Highly unlikely to happen but will now rumble on for this window, the next window, and perhaps the whole of next year. Hugely upsetting and distracting for everyone at Tottenham, including the supporters, the player himself, and of course their long- insufferable manager.

 

[ste.sully]

City would never spend £200 million on a single player who is 27 years old (and injury prone)

 

[waspish]

City would never spend £200 million on a single player who is 27 years old (and injury prone)

Yep if we were spending that much you’d chuck it at PSG for Mbappe

 

[eastlandsblue]

I'd have Kane over Mbappe everyday. If we signed Kane, it would probably be his last and only move. So 5 yrs minimum at his highest level. With Mbappe, we'd constantly have the uncertainty of him wanting his dream move the Madrid

 

[toffee balls]

It’s a yes from me.
Takes our profile to a new level.

 

[MillsyTheMosher]

I'd have Kane over Mbappe everyday.

Hahahhahahahahahhhhahahahahah

 

[blue ranger]

Why on earth do people keep coming out with this bullshit. No player comes with a guarantee, ever.

Look at his domestic and international record. I’d say better guarantees with him than someone like Martinez from Inter.

 

[blue ranger]

It's obviously bollocks, we aren't paying £200m for anyone.

I would take him in a heartbeat though, anywhere around £100m and we should be all over it.

Agree with this.

 

[eastlandsblue]

Hahahhahahahahahhhhahahahahah

Explain, why its laughable

 

[ctid1894]

Look at his domestic and international record. I’d say better guarantees with him than someone like Martinez from Inter.

I don't care if he scores 7 million goals domestically or internationally, it doesn't make him a guaranteed success here. At best it limits risk to some degree, it most certainly doesn't and never will provide a guarantee.

 

[kun]

I'd have Kane over Mbappe everyday. If we signed Kane, it would probably be his last and only move. So 5 yrs minimum at his highest level. With Mbappe, we'd constantly have the uncertainty of him wanting his dream move the Madrid

I get your reasoning but Mbappé is already world class with so much room to grow while Kane is closing in on 30 and getting worryingly injury prone.
The risk of Mbappé doing a Sané would be worth it IMO, especially when you have the small chance of Mbappé leading the line for a decade or more.

 

[HaalandEffect]