Harry Kane

StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
I can't disagree with a single word of this. I am not against Harry Kane at all and I do not see the relevance of the fact that Harry Kane has not won a trophy. Harry Kane would win the golden boot every year would win trophies by the bucket load if he were to come to City. You are, however, right that many prefer Haaland and I am one of them. That's all there is too it: Haaland first choice, Mbappe (highly, highly unlikely) and Harry Kane a very strong third choice. We can't go wrong with any of them.
Click to expand...
1 other thing for certain is Kane wouldn't miss a fucking penalty although the bent cnuts wouldn't give us as many???

Kane in a City team is taking our game to another level, Haaland & Mbappa also move the team massively forward but I just dont see Mbappa coming no matter what we throw at him

Kane or Haaland I'm not fust both tremendous players
 
Kane wouldn’t be my choice

1. A huge transfer fee for a player with dodgy ankles. Levy will expect an absolute fortune for him. With his recent injury record I wouldn’t want the club to spend probably 120-150m for him.
2. I don’t think his style would suit how we play. At Spurs he is the biggest fish in a murky pond. At City he will be just a good player.
3. He has won fuck all. That’s not his fault but our squad are all winners and Kane has won nowt. A winner is a great asset to a club. A player that knows what’s needed to win major titles and has the determination to make sure he is always ready to perform at the highest level. A team player. Kane is used to being the main man. He wouldn’t be that at City..
As good as he is its a no from me.
 
I think there are good arguments why we would be better not signing Kane, but the fact he’s never won a trophy isn‘t one of them. If anything that’d be a good reason to sign him as he’d be highly motivated to put that right with us.
 
Torres given enough playing time as striker will serve team much better long term rather than spending a ton on Kane and putting Torres on bench.
 
Why are there multiple posters on here who call Mbappe Mbappa? Have I missed something?
 
Some passionate viewpoints on this thread.

My tuppenceworth is we will never sign Kane, rightly, because the outlay would be too high.

City have a keen eye on value and balancing it out across the squad. This strategy works. See the PSG win for evidence. One super expensive superstar injured = they couldn't compete with a balanced squad. Kane would cost £150m for maximum 4 seasons of an increasingly injury prone player. That's 2.5x our record signing. There's no way City touch that with a 100 foot bargepole. Thanks be to God.
 
DMA's said:
I keep hearing this but let’s look at his stats for the past 5 seasons:

16/17: 38 played 35 goals
17/18: 48 played 41 goals
18/19: 40 played 24 goals
19/20: 34 played 24 goals
20/21 46 played 31 goals

I don’t think he is that injury prone. He seemingly averages about 40 games a season which is about the same as KDB has played for us this year to put it into perspective. His ankle issues I would imagine could be managed better with a lighter work load. As it is now if he is fit he starts every game, with us he would be rotated and kept fresh like with every other outfield city player.

But most importantly just look at that goal to game ratio. He is absolutely world class and would improve us as a side immeasurably imo. Kane is a guaranteed 30 goals a season striker in this side for at least the next 4 seasons imo
Click to expand...

Can't disagree on your numbers, I think that's reasonable.

I suppose the key will be price. I'm convinced he'd cost £150m. Is 4 seasons worth that? Imo absolutely not and that's why I think it would be a big mistake.

He should never have signed that contract.
 
Dobsy said:
Some passionate viewpoints on this thread.

My tuppenceworth is we will never sign Kane, rightly, because the outlay would be too high.

City have a keen eye on value and balancing it out across the squad. This strategy works. See the PSG win for evidence. One super expensive superstar injured = they couldn't compete with a balanced squad. Kane would cost £150m for maximum 4 seasons of an increasingly injury prone player. That's 2.5x our record signing. There's no way City touch that with a 100 foot bargepole. Thanks be to God.
Click to expand...
typical rag signing.
 
Gus Cruz said:
Are those the same people that call Haaland Haarland?
Click to expand...
Stirling
Emerson
Laporta/LaPorte/LaPorta
Zach (Steffen)
Rhodri
People who say Canchelo

_voLLObaD8htldsPhjHS1-qunjIg_hzVLzG2aw5dbShL6ZtxW5RXOdJbCOMeALPEKQ6b_p2ZPYpL4yw3cL7k6wSvRypt54TodwQqaCPP5kMP-FV-Qf9rLydyXHrMdTkFdnBnECIJcRcRZS41fchKYTkXkcYprieLJ5I
 
I don’t expect Kane to be a serious target based on likely valuation by Tottenham of over £100M for a 28 year old.

Consider when was the last time this club bought a player as old as Harry Kane and the notion of shattering our club record spend on one who is injury prone seems unlikely.
 
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