Harry Kane

We're not getting him I believe.
1. Torres is better
2. Kane changes the way we play if we buy him
3. It would take him a year to play our way
4. He'l be older and less fitter and more injury prone by the time he becomes a City player
5. £140m fee that Levy will screw out of anyone who buys him -
6. Let Utd or lfc buy him
 
Who’d have thought 15 years ago that we’d be discussing whether we should sign the current England captain or whether we could do better?

Yet here we are!

Hopefully this forces Haaland’s hand and he also expresses his desire to leave the German bananas.
 
Last edited:
Gorton_Tubster said:
We're not getting him I believe.
1. Torres is better
2. Kane changes the way we play if we buy him
3. It would take him a year to play our way
4. He'l be older and less fitter and more injury prone by the time he becomes a City player
5. £140m fee that Levy will screw out of anyone who buys him -
6. Let Utd or lfc buy him
Click to expand...
Torres is not better. He might be later on, but not many players have the record that Kane has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nmc
Kane is a really good player and would obviously make us better, but taking ourselves out of the Haaland race, even if we have to wait until next summer, would be a massive mistake. Both will cost £100M but one would be a ballon d'or contender for the next decade while the other has a recurring ankle injury.
 
Harry Kane is a cracking player and a solid solid professional.

However it's a no from me, simply because of his injury record since 2016 posted earlier.

We haven't had Aguero for the thick end of what 3 seasons...all we'd be buying is a younger Injury prone player, albeit of excellent standard. Apologies for unearthing 'Cynical Manx'

On the other hand, are Spurs physios just shit at getting players back?
 
Would be a good signing at the right price but unlikely that they will accept anything less than £100m which is waaaaayyyyy too much

rags in poll position with a cash plus players type of deal which will help them clear some deadwood and improve them, unfortunately
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
Have we any confirmation of the Sky report? If Kane has told Spurs he wants to leave, and if we knew nothing about his intention, our club will have a carefully thought out transfer strategy for this transfer window at least. The club will not be taken by surprise and we will have plans to meet all eventualities. If we are genuinely interested in Kane - and there is a lot to suggest he is an option on a list of targets - we will deal with it. We will not rush in if he is not our first choice but we will take action to make sure another club doesn't beat us to him while we miss out on a player we prefer. I'll trust our club to get the player we want.
Click to expand...
Sky are not the only outlet carrying the story. Spurs have responded with a bland statement a million miles away from a denial.
That Kane's is agitating to leave is pretty certain, how strong City's interest is compared with other potential targets is anyone's guess.
 
Pingu the Penguin said:
Would be a good signing at the right price but unlikely that they will accept anything less than £100m which is waaaaayyyyy too much

rags in poll position with a cash plus players type of deal which will help them clear some deadwood and improve them, unfortunately
Click to expand...

£75m plus Martial.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
We're not getting him I believe.
1. Torres is better
2. Kane changes the way we play if we buy him
3. It would take him a year to play our way
4. He'l be older and less fitter and more injury prone by the time he becomes a City player
5. £140m fee that Levy will screw out of anyone who buys him -
6. Let Utd or lfc buy him
Click to expand...
Stopped reading at 1.

how is the player who will become the leading goal scorer in premier league history not as good as Torres ffs? Time to log off I think
 
I just read in the MEN that both City and Rag fans want their Club to sign Kane.

I think he’s a great player but personally I don’t think we should sign him. Too old, too expensive and too injury prone.

I think this forum is a pretty good barometer of what the fans think and I dont get the sense that the majority on here want us to sign Kane.
 
DMA's said:
Stopped reading at 1.

how is the player who will become the leading goal scorer in premier league history in the next few years not as good as Torres ffs? Time to log off I think
Click to expand...
Just wait until he scores a hattrick against mighty Brighton again
 
cjn said:
Kane is a really good player and would obviously make us better, but taking ourselves out of the Haaland race, even if we have to wait until next summer, would be a massive mistake. Both will cost £100M but one would be a ballon d'or contender for the next decade while the other has a recurring ankle injury.
Click to expand...

I agree - but what if Haarland isn't making the right noises !
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
We're not getting him I believe.
1. Torres is better
2. Kane changes the way we play if we buy him
3. It would take him a year to play our way
4. He'l be older and less fitter and more injury prone by the time he becomes a City player
5. £140m fee that Levy will screw out of anyone who buys him -
6. Let Utd or lfc buy him
Click to expand...
No offence mate but I stopped reading after point 1.
 
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