Harry Kane

[Cityfan]

I think it’s not hard to guess who Khaldoon was talking about with that quote. Now of course I could be wrong. We’ll see

Might have been Messi but it could equally have been Koulibally who we were looking to sign or possibly both.
If we could get five years of high performing Kane, I think we would be happy.

 

[Deleted member 87819]

I don't agree. We don't ever really buy to sell at a first team level. We minimise risks by signing young players, and optimise value. But it isn't a religion where we have to be dogmatic. Signing a proven world class player at 28/29, no matter how expensive, isn't a problem for the right player IMO. Notwithstanding that I reckon City want a marquee player for the 9 position. The likes of Patson Daka et al don't fit that bill, so I suspect that if we end up having to pay a big fee for Kane, we'll do it no problem.

For the record when we're talking about a big fee, for me we're talking 100/120 million pounds.

I don’t think you understand my point. What you say you don’t agree with isn’t the point I was making.
With a Messi, Haaland, Mbappe, Neymar, the club grows its audience and its outreach and commercial returns on a global level. Money comes in and better deals. The money spent on them pays itself off. I’m not saying it will pay itself of because the players will be sold. I’m saying they would bring the club money while here. Hence also the PSG example. Ever since PSG signed Neymar, there isn’t a day that I leave my house here in Brazil and don’t see at least one (it’s never just one) person with PSG merchandise, for instance. I hardly ever saw any before.
Kane simply doesn’t have that impact. You can’t look at England for this, you have to look at the world. What he brings is is the goals whenever fit. But I don’t see that large fee being paid just for that

 

[Deleted member 87819]

Might have been Messi but it could equally have been Koulibally who we were looking to sign or possibly both.
If we could get five years of high performing Kane, I think we would be happy.

But the Koulibaly example actually backs up my point. We know we looked at him, at Kounde and at Dias. Why did we settle for Dias? Because we managed a good deal with Benfica involving Otamendi and it was financially smarter than going with the other two, even if Pep himself maybe had a different preference. The club decided it made no sense to spend more money on Kounde and Koulibaly when Dias could do the same/similar job as those. Those two wouldn’t make a difference on the brand of the club. I think we would find a more reasonably priced option than Kane if all we wanted were the goals, even if not as many

 

[Deleted member 87819]

Its time we took our world presence to the next level and Kane wont do that.

It’s what I have been saying. Having the best team in the world is hard. And when you get there, you have to start capitalizing on it. Barcelona under Pep and then with Luis Enrique capitalized on being seen as the better team of the world because of Messi and his group and later also because of Neymar. When it was Madrid’s turn, they had Ronaldo as a global superstar. Then you have examples of teams that “just” were the best but didn’t take advantage of it. It’s pretty obvious that we are ready for the next step

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

The lie about Haaland’s pressing is as nonsensical as the one about his first touch. People repeat it without ever watching him and some start believing it.

Here’s an analysis of his pressing from 11 months ago: https://talksport.com/football/7077...rtmund-tactics-manchester-united-real-madrid/

It’s an excellent read. Please check it outS I could send other articles but I’ll leave it at that one unless you want more. Now keep in mind that he has actually seriously improved since that article was written.

I was only basing that on the few games I’ve seen of him. Fair enough if that’s not right. But I think Kane does a better job at pressing and working for the team

 

[Tugay One Cup]

I don’t think you understand my point. What you say you don’t agree with isn’t the point I was making.
With a Messi, Haaland, Mbappe, Neymar, the club grows its audience and its outreach and commercial returns on a global level. Money comes in and better deals. The money spent on them pays itself off. I’m not saying it will pay itself of because the players will be sold. I’m saying they would bring the club money while here. Hence also the PSG example. Ever since PSG signed Neymar, there isn’t a day that I leave my house here in Brazil and don’t see at least one (it’s never just one) person with PSG merchandise, for instance. I hardly ever saw any before.
Kane simply doesn’t have that impact. You can’t look at England for this, you have to look at the world. What he brings is is the goals whenever fit. But I don’t see that large fee being paid just for that

It's pretty clear that the club's main criteria, by far, for considering player purchases is what they bring on the pitch. Marketability just isn't anywhere near the top priority but obviously it would be taken into consideration with all other aspects.

Success breeds success. Look down the road; they've been signing incredibly marketable players for years. Public perception seems to be a much greater factor when it comes to their acquisitions and it's prevented them from successfully building a winning mentality in both the short and long term. I guess they've been nailing sponsorship deals still.

Forgive me if I'm also missing your main point but I think this idea of marketability being such a big influence on our transfer policy just doesn't hold up.

 

[Cityfan]

But the Koulibaly example actually backs up my point. We know we looked at him, at Kounde and at Dias. Why did we settle for Dias? Because we managed a good deal with Benfica involving Otamendi and it was financially smarter than going with the other two, even if Pep himself maybe had a different preference. The club decided it made no sense to spend more money on Kounde and Koulibaly when Dias could do the same/similar job as those. Those two wouldn’t make a difference on the brand of the club. I think we would find a more reasonably priced option than Kane if all we wanted were the goals, even if not as many

My point was more who City might go for. Koulibally could have raised our profile in Africa though, I don't think we have any players from Sub-Saharan Africa.
A few more goals can have quite a disporportionate effect on sporting achievement if the occur at the right time.

 

[Tugay One Cup]

My point was more who City might go for. Koulibally could have raised our profile in Africa though, I don't think we have any players from Sub-Saharan Africa.
A few more goals can have quite a disporportionate effect on sporting achievement if the occur at the right time.

We don't necessarily rely on players to build our profile around the world because we've been doing that by other means such as making commercial ties with international brands and through CFG purchasing clubs in other continents.

With how we're held under such scrutiny by the wider football world, it would also be easy for such moves to backfire.

I'd imagine City shirts were selling like hotcakes in Algeria and possibly North Africa as a whole when we signed Mahrez. Then, because of the incredible expectations of his fans, the manager and the club received intense criticism on a daily basis when he wasn't starting every game.

 

[BillyShears]

You can’t look at England for this, you have to look at the world. What he brings is is the goals whenever fit. But I don’t see that large fee being paid just for that

Goals are literally the hardest thing to buy. Yet City paid 62.6 million pounds in ONE GO for Rodri. I'm comfortable in saying they'll pay twice that for Kane.

 

[Marvin]

Goals are literally the hardest thing to buy. Yet City paid 62.6 million pounds in ONE GO for Rodri. I'm comfortable in saying they'll pay twice that for Kane.

Even when we have no match day revenue?

There are debates about players abilities and intrinsic value but football finance looks very precarious. It maybe a short term crisis but all the same I can't see any big transfers in football until we know Covid-19 is certainly behind us.

 

[Kippax77]

I think Kane is trying his best to become a glory hunter.
I don't think we should touch him.
Yes he scores lots of goals,(lots of above average strikers would in our side) but he has to be centre of attention for both his club and country.
We don't need that ego at our club, and the huge transfer fee Spurs would command for him could be wisely spent on someone else, preferably someone younger and less injury prone, providing us with a better value for money transfer.

I can see why some fans would love him at City and why others wouldn't.
Im one of those that wouldn't

 

[Deleted member 87819]

It's pretty clear that the club's main criteria, by far, for considering player purchases is what they bring on the pitch. Marketability just isn't anywhere near the top priority but obviously it would be taken into consideration with all other aspects.

Success breeds success. Look down the road; they've been signing incredibly marketable players for years. Public perception seems to be a much greater factor when it comes to their acquisitions and it's prevented them from successfully building a winning mentality in both the short and long term. I guess they've been nailing sponsorship deals still.

Forgive me if I'm also missing your main point but I think this idea of marketability being such a big influence on our transfer policy just doesn't hold up.

I think you may have seen from the my posts after the one you replied to that I am making precisely the opposite point. I agree with you that the club is looking at what they bring on the pitch. And making smart deals in that regard.

I don’t think we would have done what PSG did with Neymar, by paying what they did to Barcelona, for instance. But we would have (it’s a fact) paid for Mbappe what his price was had he chosen us. Every single scout saw that he was a generational talent and a marketable superstar. It would have been a smart investment.

Stars like those two, the ones that drastically change our place in the world, don’t come around often. We were willing to offer Messi an insane deal for him last summer because he too would have had an impact. As I have said in another thread, I am willing to bet that we won’t miss out on Haaland for being outspent. We may miss out on him in case he chooses another team, but the opportunity to sign him, not just for the immense talent, but the commercial opportunity, is not one we will let it pass. It doesn’t mean we won’t try to make the best possible deal, obviously.

With Kane, I just don’t see the evidence that the club would be willing to pay that much for a player that brings nothing off the pitch. I don’t rule out being wrong, but I have to see it happen to believe it. I don’t think any club would spend that much just for the sporting gains.

We already have what is already seen as the best team in the world, but there is a “next step” commercially that can still be taken. We can win all the titles this year, but that’s not the limit. We have the potential to be the most talked about club, the most sold shirt, etc in the world. Haaland is the kind of star (like Mbappe or Messi) that would make the kind of difference in that regard. Any of those three come in and they immediately become the biggest star in the Premier League, but not only that, they also change the profile of the Premier League, our merchandising goes through the roof as do our deals. Those stars aren’t made every two years. Which is why you make an exception to our model for them. Like PSG did — that was the point of my example. You look at what PSG does besides Neymar and Mbappe and it’s not very different from us. Those two took them to the next level. We were willing to make Mbappe in 2017 be “the one”. Then Messi last summer was an unexpected possibility that opened up. You can listen to Sam Lee’s podcasts around that time. He talks about how Messi has been a project of City for years, and how we saw him as a way to expand the brand of the group. Now you have Haaland who can take us there. Maybe you think we don’t care about having the same global presence of PSG or surpass that of our domestic rivals. I would say that is a naive view

 

[FantasyIreland]

Is he injured again?

 

[Deleted member 87819]

Goals are literally the hardest thing to buy. Yet City paid 62.6 million pounds in ONE GO for Rodri. I'm comfortable in saying they'll pay twice that for Kane.

The fee paid for Rodri isn’t that extraordinary. It was for us but it’s not for the football world. I don’t take it as evidence of anything.

 

[MCFC1993]

Is he injured again?

Richarlison landed on him in injury time last night and Kane rolled his ankle. No news yet as to the severity of it but he limped off and he's had ankle injuries in the past.

 

[Tugay One Cup]

I think you may have seen from the my posts after the one you replied to that I am making precisely the opposite point.

Fair enough, I'll put it down to a lack of sleep on my part.

Personally, my gripe with Kane is purely his age and my questions about long term fitness. The second is by far my biggest concern and if that wasn't a problem then I'd welcome the signing. The guy's a superb player.

That being said, I'm fully in the Haaland camp.

 

[citizen_maine]

Have you seen such glee on a thread when someone goes off injured?

Is it similar to the glee you displayed when he scored?

 

[citizen_maine]

Scoring goals and winning titles and earning wheel barrows full of money, that's what it's all about.

I am certain Kane will move this summer and end up in Manchester ( Trafford.)

So, no titles then

 

[Grealish’s Shinpads]

For me it isn’t resale value, it’s whether we would need to spend similar again in 4 years. I think Haaland and Kane would both cost between £100-£120 mill. With Haaland you would hope to get 10 years maybe 12 from that, or if he left get our money back to replace him. With Kane even if we got 5 years we would need to be spending well over£100 mill maybe nearer 200 in 5 years to get a similar level player.
I f we can’t get Haaland, or though more unlikely Mbappe and the club decide on Kane, I have no problem at all with that,great. Just my opinion I have doubts the club would do it, if they do though I all good with that too.

Completely agree with that. Posters talking about resale value are missing the point though.

 

[Grealish’s Shinpads]

I completely agree with the sentiment . Our aim is to make money from players through their footballing ability and hence our sporting achievements as we have with Kompany Silva Aguero etc. However I think we have to acknowledge with Haaland his agent does tend to have his clients move fairly frequently to maximise their profitability and that his resale may be of importance to us.

Kane hasn’t got the same agent though so whilst I get your point, I don’t think that resale value comes into the Haaland vs Kane discussion.

I also think that Raiola isn’t as bad for that as he’s made out to be. He has a lot of players who have stayed put at their clubs.