Harry Kane

blueparrot said:
I have 3.He'd be well over £100mill,The best we could hope for is 4 good years. With his history of ankle injuries it could be less than 4 good years.
There are better younger options.
Click to expand...

1. Any top quality striker is going to cost north of £100 million.

2. Kane’s game does not rely on pace and he’s becoming a smarter player with age. Even If he spends 5 seasons here, he will beat Shearer’s record and justify the money IMO.

3. By better, younger options I take it you mean Haaland and Mbappe. Both of which would cost more than Kane and are not proven in the PL.

His injuries would be a slight concern but he’d have to pass a medical before joining and he’d be rotated a lot more than he is at Spurs.

Also, on the first point of the transfer fee, I don’t understand people’s obsession with this. We’re not a side who sells our prime assets and when we lose a player, they end up like Sane and run their contract down so we lose market value anyway.

We might get another 3 years out of Pep if we’re lucky. Give him the tools to smash the PL and Europe now.

For me, I’m not arsed out of Haaland and Kane who we sign, both are top quality strikers and would improve the side.
 
I don't know the detail but Spurs invested over £850m in a new stadium - only to see revenues collapse at a time when they were projecting huge growth - even when crowds return to football its hard to know when the NFL will start playing fixtures in Europe again. They have numerous loans and bonds to manage and they have taken huge sums from the Governments Covid schemes to prop things up. Whether their financial position is sustainable or not is difficult to predict but things cannot be looking too good so they may be pushed into raising some cash and beyond Kane they don't have too many major assets.
 
daztrueblue91 said:
1. Any top quality striker is going to cost north of £100 million.

2. Kane’s game does not rely on pace and he’s becoming a smarter player with age. Even If he spends 5 seasons here, he will beat Shearer’s record and justify the money IMO.

3. By better, younger options I take it you mean Haaland and Mbappe. Both of which would cost more than Kane and are not proven in the PL.

His injuries would be a slight concern but he’d have to pass a medical before joining and he’d be rotated a lot more than he is at Spurs.

Also, on the first point of the transfer fee, I don’t understand people’s obsession with this. We’re not a side who sells our prime assets and when we lose a player, they end up like Sane and run their contract down so we lose market value anyway.

We might get another 3 years out of Pep if we’re lucky. Give him the tools to smash the PL and Europe now.

For me, I’m not arsed out of Haaland and Kane who we sign, both are top quality strikers and would improve the side.
Click to expand...
Haaland and maybe even Mbappe probably wouldn't cost more than Kane, both would give us 10 years or more or a resale. Kane would give us 4 years 5 maximum. Thats how I'd expect the club to see it too, and it's why we have a DOF not managers making the final decisions.
 
Guscruz said:
Really, why?
Click to expand...

1. We’re crying out for a striker but have an abundance of creative midfielders.

2. Fernandes is not better than De Bruyne and isn’t really an upgrade of Gundogan based on this seasons form.

3. Kane is levels above any striker we have at the club.

For what it’s worth, I’d take both Kane and Fernandes at City in a heartbeat. They’re both top players.

But based on what we need and the fact that Kane is a top 3 striker in the world, I don’t see the relevance to Fernandes.
 
LongsightM13 said:
That last paragraph nails it. Would prefer Haaland due to his age but anyone turning their nose up at Kane as an alternative must be mad. He would be a significant upgrade on what we have up front
Click to expand...
Are the ones bemoaning Kane's age/ injury record because they want Halaand, the same ones screaming for City to sign Koubially.
 
LongsightM13 said:
That last paragraph nails it. Would prefer Haaland due to his age but anyone turning their nose up at Kane as an alternative must be mad. He would be a significant upgrade on what we have up front
Click to expand...

It’s the obsession with longevity which I find strange. Some people are so focused on the future that they ignore the here and now.

Real Madrid dominated Europe with a squad which contained key players in their prime. Ronaldo, Marcelo, Modric and Ramos were all in their late 20s/early 30s during that spell.

Sign Kane and we’d have him, KDB, Sterling, Bernardo, Stones and Laporte all falling into the same category over the next 4 years.

I’ve not actually seen that much of Haaland but know he’s had a meteoric rise of the past 24 months. He also impressed me in the CL match.

But I have seen a lot of Kane and he’s been immense for many years now. He’s also become one of the best passers in the league and has the assists to back it up.

The fact that there are some posts on here wishing him to join United is utter madness.
 
I totally disagree that Kane is an upgrade on Aguero and would be value for money but fair play if you think that
 
daztrueblue91 said:
It’s the obsession with longevity which I find strange. Some people are so focused on the future that they ignore the here and now.

Real Madrid dominated Europe with a squad which contained key players in their prime. Ronaldo, Marcelo, Modric and Ramos were all in their late 20s/early 30s during that spell.

Sign Kane and we’d have him, KDB, Sterling, Bernardo, Stones and Laporte all falling into the same category over the next 4 years.

I’ve not actually seen that much of Haaland but know he’s had a meteoric rise of the past 24 months. He also impressed me in the CL match.

But I have seen a lot of Kane and he’s been immense for many years now. He’s also become one of the best passers in the league and has the assists to back it up.

The fact that there are some posts on here wishing him to join United is utter madness.
Click to expand...
I’m guessing some people have set their hearts on Haaland so feel the need to argue against Kane. I’m trying to be generous here.
 
LongsightM13 said:
Prime Sergio, no. The current 2021 post-injuries Sergio, sadly yes.
Click to expand...
Hard to say Longsight he has struggled to get on the pitch in the past two seasons.

As for Harry I was a fan up to 12 months ago not so sure now.

With that price tag on him would prefer starlet from the Continent.
 
daztrueblue91 said:
It’s the obsession with longevity which I find strange. Some people are so focused on the future that they ignore the here and now.

Real Madrid dominated Europe with a squad which contained key players in their prime. Ronaldo, Marcelo, Modric and Ramos were all in their late 20s/early 30s during that spell.

Sign Kane and we’d have him, KDB, Sterling, Bernardo, Stones and Laporte all falling into the same category over the next 4 years.

I’ve not actually seen that much of Haaland but know he’s had a meteoric rise of the past 24 months. He also impressed me in the CL match.

But I have seen a lot of Kane and he’s been immense for many years now. He’s also become one of the best passers in the league and has the assists to back it up.

The fact that there are some posts on here wishing him to join United is utter madness.
Click to expand...

One of the problems with Kane for me is that for someone his age, the lack of titles is an issue. He may be a winner of certain stats in certain years, but he’s not a Winner. I like players used to winning, especially at that age. And his European record isn’t impressive either.

By the way, the players from Madrid you mentioned all have (still) better physical conditions than Kane. Ronaldo is the ultimate athlete who thinks of his body as a temple, for instance.

Would I prefer Kane over some of the lesser names people throw around like Danny Ings or Andre Silva? 100%. But I have Haaland and Lukaku way ahead of him.
 
Guscruz said:
One of the problems with Kane for me is that for someone his age, the lack of titles is an issue. He may be a winner of certain stats in certain years, but he’s not a Winner. I like players used to winning, especially at that age. And his European record isn’t impressive either.

By the way, the players from Madrid you mentioned all have (still) better physical conditions than Kane. Ronaldo is the ultimate athlete who thinks of his body as a temple, for instance.

Would I prefer Kane over some of the lesser names people throw around like Danny Ings or Andre Silva? 100%. But I have Haaland and Lukaku way ahead of him.
Click to expand...

This is where I have to disagree with you.

Has Kyle Walker’s game dramatically changed from when he was at Spurs? He’s more defensive but still got the exact same skill set. Yet he’s a serial winner at City.

John O’Shea didn’t lack winners medals but he was nowhere near as good as other defenders in the PL.

Teams win trophies not individuals.

But sticking on the United theme, I seem to remember them signing one of the best attackers in the PL, who by your logic, “wasn’t a winner” in van Persie. Look how that ended up.
 
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