Harry Kane

I genuinely didn't think Kane would do this to Spurs. I am quite surprised about it, and to be honest I don't like it when players don't turn up for training etc. It's not professional and reflects badly on Kane.

However, Spurs have played this incredibly badly. He wanted to leave and I think he had a gentlemens agreement he could do. Spurs have no chance of any form of trophy and Kane wants trophies. If they are not careful they could end up with no money and a very unhappy player on their books. His value has dropped - not that anyone would pay £150m, but they are now likely to get offers of under £100m which was a fair amount in the market.

I'd be tempted to let Kane stay at Spurs - they won't play him against us. Let him stay there spoiling the team spirit before an offer just before the window closes.
 
JPBB said:
Well written.

Except Spurs do win a lot of football matches. Just not as many as City. So in short, you say unless your club wins trophies like Liverpool, United, Arsenal, or Chelsea, a club don't exist other than to provide you with players.

Sometimes people accuse some City fans of being a bit nouveaux, a bit classless, a bit trashy. That is unfair. But your post doesn't help in dispelling that view.
Click to expand...

Just for reference, we are not nouveaux; that is a common mistake uniformed supporters of other clubs make.
 
Fordyboy46 said:
We need these deals wrapped up within the next couple of weeks ideally. The longer they drag on the less time we'll have for any backup signings if both say no.
Click to expand...
What part of "the Rags can't afford them" can you not comprehend, getting sick and tired of trying to explain to you... Think I might have to press the "ignore" button on you fella, sorry.
 
BillyShears said:
Oh the money will get paid and the player will get bought. But winning? That's not something your club really does. Take it from a supporter base that has been there. You're a service company for the country's best clubs. A little bit like Dortmund in Germany or Lille in France.

Thank you for the service you provide btw. It's always good to have a club who will develop talent over years, never really threaten for the major honours, and always be ready and willing to sell when real money comes knocking.
Click to expand...

That's really cruel....... On Lille and Dortmund, at least they win things!
 
Big question now is what happens next!?

Whilst I don't support players striking (Tevez as an example) if he goes back into training tomorrow it looks a bit of a hollow move today. If he stays away, how long realistically can he do that?

Fascinating to see what happens over the next few days, but the longer he isn't training the more Spurs are mugged off by him. Surely this has to be resolved before the season starts, otherwise it will be such a circus.

I reckon he will be our player by the end of next week.
 
Wembley99 said:
Big question now is what happens next!?

Whilst I don't support players striking (Tevez as an example) if he goes back into training tomorrow it looks a bit of a hollow move today. If he stays away, how long realistically can he do that?

Fascinating to see what happens over the next few days, but the longer he isn't training the more Spurs are mugged off by him. Surely this has to be resolved before the season starts, otherwise it will be such a circus.

I reckon he will be our player by the end of next week.
Click to expand...
Kane missing training for a bit means he won't be available for spurs first game, which just happens to be against who? On the other hand there is no way Kane lines up for City away first game against you know who, the deal will get done, but not until after the opening fixture.
 
It was announced a couple of weeks ago by Spurs that Kane would miss the start of the season, that's nothing new.
 
Wembley99 said:
Big question now is what happens next!?

Whilst I don't support players striking (Tevez as an example) if he goes back into training tomorrow it looks a bit of a hollow move today. If he stays away, how long realistically can he do that?

Fascinating to see what happens over the next few days, but the longer he isn't training the more Spurs are mugged off by him. Surely this has to be resolved before the season starts, otherwise it will be such a circus.

I reckon he will be our player by the end of next week.
Click to expand...

i can see it now kane sat in his car outside the etihad waiting for the deal to drop hahahaha
 
Ghost of 76 said:
It was announced a couple of weeks ago by Spurs that Kane would miss the start of the season, that's nothing new.
Click to expand...

It was not. It was speculated by a journalist at the telegraph, and that speculation then requoted by others.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The Sané money, and (more importantly) the profit on sale, will be in the 2020/21 financial year, which ended in June. But that doesn't really matter because of the way FFP works, with figures aggregated over 3 years.

Also people don't really understand how the whole financing of transfers works.

In a normal year, City would generate around £125m of spare cash from our normal operations. I cant be certain, as we don't publish a separate cash flow statement for the club, only for CFG. But a basic calculation means it will be around that figure. Then incoming transfer fees are added to that cash pot, most of which will be used for paying for transfers in.

There's more that needs to be taken into account on top of that. We may show a book profit on players we sell. If we take Leroy as an example, he cost us £40m (to use a round number) and let's say we sold him for the same amount. But as he'd been here 4 years, we'd have shown £32m amortisation, making his book value only £8m. That means we can book a profit of £32m on his sale. That's not cash but it can be added to the pot as it will cover £32m of amortisation and wages for an incoming player or players. I know we laugh about the Coutinho money, but that's how it works.

And then there's the amortisation and wages saved by him not being here, which is £8m plus whatever a year's wages was for him. Let's say that was £7m, which means we've got £15m extra to play with in that year. That alone covers a years amortisation for a £50m player on £100k a week.

People ask why we bother with an academy when we seem to sell most of the player. But while we sell them relatively cheaply, and they aren't on big wages, it's all profit so selling a couple of decent academy lads, like Harrison & Angelino, brings in £20m profit and that's a full year's amortisation on Grealish. Do similar every year with a few Academy players and that's the Grealish fee fully covered.

I've said this before but in the summer of 2017, when the media went on and on about us spending something like £200m gross and £120m net, our player costs (wages + amortisation) only increased by £8m that year. That's because of wages and amortisation off the books for players we sold or loaned out. That's why net spend is a completely useless comparison.
Click to expand...

My man.
 
BillyShears said:
My post is the brutal reality of the world you exist in. Just as you feed off lesser clubs so do we. Don’t be offended, I paid your club a compliment and even thanked you. Kyle Walker thanks you from behind all his PL titles. I’m sure Carrick, Berbatov, and Sheringham thank you too. I can imagine Bale wakes up everyday looks at his CL winners medals and is grateful for Levy’s willingness to take the money and run. Luka Modric? He thanks you too ...

Accepting your place in football’s ecosystem is liberating. Trust me. Trust us. We’ve been there.
Click to expand...

Pied to fuck.
 
BillyShears said:
Oh the money will get paid and the player will get bought. But winning? That's not something your club really does. Take it from a supporter base that has been there. You're a service company for the country's best clubs. A little bit like Dortmund in Germany or Lille in France.

Thank you for the service you provide btw. It's always good to have a club who will develop talent over years, never really threaten for the major honours, and always be ready and willing to sell when real money comes knocking.
Click to expand...
You should have the common decency to put some lube on a post like that...
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The Sané money, and (more importantly) the profit on sale, will be in the 2020/21 financial year, which ended in June. But that doesn't really matter because of the way FFP works, with figures aggregated over 3 years.

Also people don't really understand how the whole financing of transfers works.

In a normal year, City would generate around £125m of spare cash from our normal operations. I cant be certain, as we don't publish a separate cash flow statement for the club, only for CFG. But a basic calculation means it will be around that figure. Then incoming transfer fees are added to that cash pot, most of which will be used for paying for transfers in.

There's more that needs to be taken into account on top of that. We may show a book profit on players we sell. If we take Leroy as an example, he cost us £40m (to use a round number) and let's say we sold him for the same amount. But as he'd been here 4 years, we'd have shown £32m amortisation, making his book value only £8m. That means we can book a profit of £32m on his sale. That's not cash but it can be added to the pot as it will cover £32m of amortisation and wages for an incoming player or players. I know we laugh about the Coutinho money, but that's how it works.

And then there's the amortisation and wages saved by him not being here, which is £8m plus whatever a year's wages was for him. Let's say that was £7m, which means we've got £15m extra to play with in that year. That alone covers a years amortisation for a £50m player on £100k a week.

People ask why we bother with an academy when we seem to sell most of the player. But while we sell them relatively cheaply, and they aren't on big wages, it's all profit so selling a couple of decent academy lads, like Harrison & Angelino, brings in £20m profit and that's a full year's amortisation on Grealish. Do similar every year with a few Academy players and that's the Grealish fee fully covered.

I've said this before but in the summer of 2017, when the media went on and on about us spending something like £200m gross and £120m net, our player costs (wages + amortisation) only increased by £8m that year. That's because of wages and amortisation off the books for players we sold or loaned out. That's why net spend is a completely useless comparison.
Click to expand...
We talked about this on the Bolt From The Blue podcast last night:
 
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