Harry Kane

Guscruz said:
Inter’s current situation isn’t financially secure at all. There is a lot of uncertainty at that club coming from the ownership. They’re actually in a worse place than Atletico and Dortmund.

I don’t believe the comparison between Griezmann and Joao Felix at all. Griezmann had a release clause of 180M which Atletico slashed down to 108M as the player wanted out. Felix’s clause is 350M. Even if they cut that down in half (which is highly unlikely), it’s still a wild number. They didn’t give that player the biggest release clause of the club’s history to make it easy for him. I actually don’t think that even if Simeone told his superiors there that he wants Felix out (which there is no indication of) they would facilitate for a move. Last summer, we approached Atletico with interest of signing their CB Jose Gimenez. He is an injury prone player that misses large chunks of the season; yet Pep likes and wanted him. And still, Atletico wouldn’t back down of the release clause they set for him, of 120M.

So my point being, as it stands Felix is an unrealistic transfer, unless I see evidence proving otherwise
Click to expand...
Can you can help me understand your response?

I'm a bit confused about the reference to ideas and points I didn't intend to suggest.

To clarify what I meant, I wrote:
  1. PrezIke said:
    I thought [Lukaku would] be a target but I then heard what I wrote - and it's clear [Inter] are in a better position than Dortmund or Atleti in terms of future prospects for next season so easier to keep.
    Click to expand...

    So, I did NOT mean PRIMARILY a club's "financial position" with that sentence, as to why Felix or Lukaku would be sold or likely to. I meant more as in a club's COMPLETE ability to keep the player.

    "Financial position" is a factor, but only part of the story.

    We also have:     The player's interest in staying/their ambition to go to a "bigger" club, their agent's style, the market for the player, the club's ambitions, etc.

    - Interest in staying/ ambition is also based on what the club may look like for him in the future.

    Lukaku HAS scored goals for Inter and has increased his reputation whilst Felix has not gotten the same numbers at Atleti and his has stagnated. Conte's sides may not play the most beautiful football, but they are creating chances for Lukaku. Atleti are not as good at this under Simeone and it is arguably hurting Felix's reputation.

    - Lukaku has had 1 great season, but he failed at United so that works against his market, Felix has been inconsistent, and yet to have a great season in La Liga so his is worse - BUT - he is "less proven" at a "big club" (for or against his reputation), plays in a side that does not create chances, and is younger so that is all NOT held against him, and thus perhaps less negatives.

    - Inter are clearly vying to be, and are in otherwise good position outside of short-ish term (?) financial issues - to become Juve's top Serie A rival. Atleti are not going to expect the same results next season with RM and Barca functioning better which feels likely.

    A) Inter's difficult financial situation is not unique. Pep just said we're experiencing it, today.

    Inter will do all they can to keep Lukaku for next season regardless. They may also think they can get more for him 1 season post COVID and I'd gather would rather move other lesser parts to keep Lukaku if needs be.

    B) We know there are rumours swirling about Lukaku, but if you read between the lines you will also notice that Inter want Lukaku to sign a new contract. Do you hear this about Felix? No.

    It could be a Suarez Liverpool situation to get a bigger fee, but I don't think it's the same. Italian clubs we see are stubborn about selling to the richer PL clubs they are competing with for world reputation/CL and the same ones (City/Chelsea) who are targeting Lukaku this summer.

    The Lukaku leaving rumours can also easily be his agent trying to get a better contract whilst understandable feelers are sent out.

  2. I didn't compare Griezmann to Felix, other than their wages, nor did I mention anything about their release clauses (I'll answer to that in a moment).

    I pointed out the fees Atletico received for Griezmann and paid for Felix combined with the difference in their wages to show that the net loss between selling Griezmann and buying Felix was a few million Euros.

    A) I'll reiterate the flaws I see with and respond to the argument I hear regularly that Atleti won't sell Felix for less than what they paid (€126m).

    The maths regarding the loss of fee paid for Felix minus Griezmann's fee was -€6m, so why would it have to be no less than the €126m fee they paid for Felix? As an example, if Atleti sell Felix for €80m they get a €74m profit.

    Then factor in less wages for Felix over 2 seasons and that 6m figure drops, compared to the cost of keeping Griezmann's higher wages.

    B) As for the high release clause for Felix, yes it is a preventative measure and yes, and shows they value him. Yet, we know that they are likely never going to get anything close to it. It is that high due to Neymar, yet he was an abberation.
    ​
  3. Just lastly, again, a big difference between both players has been how this season has panned out for their reputations and how much you honestly think either player wants to stay for 1 more season to see if their market will grow their performance if their manager remains the same.

    That's a big part of why I suspect Lukaku stays as he seems MORE likely willing to stay at Inter 1 more season compared to Felix.

    For Lukaku, it's gone very well at Inter this year     who may feel more pressure to compete for the title and a better showing in CL next season than Atletico next season.

    Compare this to Felix's situation. He might be ready to leave Atleti now because it's hard to see major changes to style to facilitate his skills, such as with a new manager, even if we hear Simeone may leave soon (if Simeone goes this summer this helps perhaps).

    If you're Felix, I'd be concerned about another season with Atleti for my reputation, compared to playing at a club where I get chances to shine.

    There are reasons I can see Felix staying, sure, I'm just seeing him being the easier signing compared to Lukaku given all these factors.​
 
Last edited:
I reckon we can safely say Kane is not coming to City. Age 27 worth bugger all after a 5 year deal makes the kind of eye watering transfer Levy will demand a non starter.
Our owners are too intelligent to invest a vast sum of money with no return. Yes he will score goals, plenty of them, but so will someone else who is much younger and with a genuine resale value.
On top of that he is starting to pick up more injuries. We would be paying top money for a player who is at his peak right now but will start to slowly decline in the next few years.
Personally I think we can rule Harry Kane out!!? Let our red friends from down the road buy him. If not then I see his asking price drop quite considerably from 175m, because his age is against such a huge investment.
 
Len Rum said:
Err yeah.
I read your post to mean we already had enough players who can play in the false number 9 system and therefore didn't need a player like Felix whereas I meant to reply that maybe Pep wants more of such players ( although admittedly I didn't express that too well).
Click to expand...

I was only pulling your leg,Len.

Cheers
 
People are so up Haaland's arse they'll not even consider league's best CF for the last few years as alternative. We are in need of a striker on Sergio's level and Kane is the only one in the league on par so he will naturally be in the conversation. Haaland is not a dead certainty to sign. Kane is more accessible, Prem proven and will perform for this team if he signs. Also zero *ucks given on his supposedly twattish behavior or some bluemooners bleeding heart because he saw Harry stole a kid's lollipop. I honestly don't like most Spurs players myself because they are absolute twats and even more raggish than United. Rest assured Kane will have to dial down his cuntish behavior when playing for us because we are not FA darlings like Spuds or Leicester, Walker found that out quickly in his first season. I dare say save for his insane valuation and transfer fee, City will have an easier time convincing Kane to come here than Haaland because we won't have to deal with moneybag Raiola or Haaland's already over inflated ego.
 
Kane is a fantastic player. A bit cuntish yeah, but honestly who cares if he were to start banging goals in regularly wearing sky blue. He does have a few advantages over Haaland - his style of play would fit us like a glove, and he's clearly prem proven so would theoretically hit the ground running. So from that perspective, he would be a better signing then Haaland.

Only, for me anyway, it's not that cut and dry. He'll be 29 (I think) next season. So he's already peaked, and even though his peak is pretty fucking high, that has to be taken into account - that he's not getting any better than what he already is. But that's fine, what really worries me is the injuries. At 29, he's had some serious injuries in his legs, and he's not exactly a short guy, so leg and ankle injuries are a major red flag. He could pick up another one and be done at the top level, or even if he remains healthy, he's reaching the age where his play could just naturally decline. There are plenty of footballers that nosedived at that age, for injuries or other reasons, especially at striker. What is the best case scenario? We get another 3 or 4 years out of him at his current level? That's great, but not exactly a long-term solution.

Then you take into account the cost. Dealing with Levy is never easy. I'm not going to pretend to know the ins and outs in transfers, but I'd guess the cost to get Kane would be pretty close, if not exceeding the cost to get Haaland. And, taking into account his age again, we wouldn't get anything for selling Kane on. Haaland, even if he comes here and bombs, or if in a few years he wants to move on, we'd be able to recoup some of that cost if not turn a profit.

So taking all that into account, I'd prefer Haaland. He's younger, he doesn't have the injury concerns, and we have no idea what his peak is. It could be the best player on the planet. He could realistically lead the line for the next 10+ years. But, if it doesn't happen, Kane is not a bad Option B.

Don't get me started on Danny fucking Ings though.
 
Abit of a shithouse yes but fucking hell kane would score a SHITLOAD in our team! And he would be our shithouse as well ;-)
 
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