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.