Harry Kane

wolviedinho said:
Despite all the nonsense in this post you have missed 1 very obvious and telling point.

Not once have you mentioned Spurs trying to actually win something on the field. It’s all about finance and the profit sheet.

You have the audacity to preach but miss the point. Your rotten football club is not competitive at all.

Kane knows it, we all know it.
Click to expand...
Absolutely spot on.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
We’ve signed loads of players and sold them on. And we sensibly don’t usually pay fees at this level for 27 year olds neither, or at all.

But I’m not thinking in terms of City and what we usually do, I’m thinking in terms of the fee and what you’d expect to come with it:
- Long term
- Room for development and improvement over the course of the contact from the player
- Chance to sell on and earn something back (even if we opt not to)
- No worries over injury history

He doesn’t tick any of these boxes. He’s 27, he’s as good as he ever will be, his best years might even be behind him, he’s had some big injuries to his ankles and he’s looking less athletic as he’s getting into his late 20s because of them.

He literally just ticks the ‘scores goals’ box. I wouldn’t put that above any fee paid for the likes of Pogba or van Dijk.
Click to expand...
I may be reaching here, but getting kane (and grealish) also helps the club to extend Pep's contract I think..We can maybe stress that we are building the team in your image/got the players you want..it would hard for him to reject an extension when we have spent so much on these two.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
We’ve signed loads of players and sold them on. And we sensibly don’t usually pay fees at this level for 27 year olds neither, or at all.

But I’m not thinking in terms of City and what we usually do, I’m thinking in terms of the fee and what you’d expect to come with it:
- Long term
- Room for development and improvement over the course of the contact from the player
- Chance to sell on and earn something back (even if we opt not to)
- No worries over injury history

He doesn’t tick any of these boxes. He’s 27, he’s as good as he ever will be, his best years might even be behind him, he’s had some big injuries to his ankles and he’s looking less athletic as he’s getting into his late 20s because of them.

He literally just ticks the ‘scores goals’ box. I wouldn’t put that above any fee paid for the likes of Pogba or van Dijk.
Click to expand...
He ticks more than a scores goals box. He’s at his peak and can break goal records here. We’ve lost our best ever striker so what a statement it would be to go and sign the best striker in the league to replace him. We’ve made the mistake in the past of not strengthening with a player who improves us after a title win and paid the price. Kane will definitely improve us.

With regards his athleticism he looked as sharp as ever for Spurs last season. Can understand you saying it though because he looked leggy for England especially in the early games. I promise you he looked exactly the same 3 years earlier for England at the World Cup.
 
Last edited:
Can’t see this transfer going through until the last week of the window, levy will fuck us over or try to. They are massively in debt and need the money because no other player they have on the books will generate anything near Kane,s price. And this manageable debt is another fucking joke which the rags have been getting away with for years, manageable debt means it’s coming down not increasing every pissing year.
 
theone91 said:
Changes absolutely nothing

Has already made it clear he wants to leave

And Levy is clear hes not for sale and would take close to a world record fee to change that
Click to expand...

Does change things. Gives up loyalty bonus for one.
 
JPBB said:
Your valuation simply does not make any sense.

1. Firstly we know you can afford £160m. You can probably afford £300m
2. You have set the market price high with £100m for the beautiful Jack. Kane is clearly a more valuable player
3. Thirdly despite what many of you are saying, we don't need to sell. Yes, the debt is massive but it is well structured and manageable.
4. Does Kane want to go? Yes, of course. But if he goes on strike until August - so what? In the end he will have to start playing again or he is not in the England squad and he does not get his dream move to United next summer.
5. Three years on his contract means he is still very sellable next year
6. We'll need replacement players - a striker is £60m maybe more now they know we have cash. Plus we hope to buy a few more so we have a good chance of one them becoming a superstar that you can buy in three years (see Bale's money)
7. We want a nice little profit on the deal
8. So £60m for a striker, a few more at £20-40m each and some profit plus the uplift/tax because it is City seems to equal £160m not £100m

One other point that no-one has mentioned is that, maybe, and this is just supposition, the new stadium naming rights could be contingent on Kane staying.
Click to expand...
Firstly why not 9. Instead of another point, and the Harry Kane Stadium ;) seriously if big money was coming in you wouldn’t have Nuno in charge and waiting for Kane’s money to land before you buy.
 
JPBB said:
Your valuation simply does not make any sense.

1. Firstly we know you can afford £160m. You can probably afford £300m
2. You have set the market price high with £100m for the beautiful Jack. Kane is clearly a more valuable player
3. Thirdly despite what many of you are saying, we don't need to sell. Yes, the debt is massive but it is well structured and manageable.
4. Does Kane want to go? Yes, of course. But if he goes on strike until August - so what? In the end he will have to start playing again or he is not in the England squad and he does not get his dream move to United next summer.
5. Three years on his contract means he is still very sellable next year
6. We'll need replacement players - a striker is £60m maybe more now they know we have cash. Plus we hope to buy a few more so we have a good chance of one them becoming a superstar that you can buy in three years (see Bale's money)
7. We want a nice little profit on the deal
8. So £60m for a striker, a few more at £20-40m each and some profit plus the uplift/tax because it is City seems to equal £160m not £100m

One other point that no-one has mentioned is that, maybe, and this is just supposition, the new stadium naming rights could be contingent on Kane staying.
Click to expand...

1. Y'see, that where you f*cked up with FFP. Its doesn't stop well fiunded clubs from going under, but it does prevent them being able to pay silly fees for players like the one you want.
2. Yes, you're probably right. Then again, Jack is 3 years younger and we can probably do without a CF if push comes to shove (not that we'd want to, I agree).
3. No idea, you'd know better than me, but I'd be astounded if - with City having felt the pinch and lost 120m - Spurs hadn't lost an awful lot more (no matter how well structured your debt is).
4. True enough. Striking is not sustainable for him or you.
5. Next year he'll be 29. I'd say you'd get 60-70m tops. We can cope with the 60m depreciation given CL participation & other prize money. You probably can't (as much).
6. Fact is that there's a glut of strikers at the moment (as proven by our focus on Kane). You'd be able to get 2 or 3 signings tops with the Kane money.
7. As he's 'one of your own' isn't any money a profit ?
8. You'll get 120m max. No more. Probably no less.

The fact is that you're doing a bit of a 'Messi' with Kane. 120m would be fantastic money (especially in the current climate) but you've had a look at ONE other transfer and figured that he's worth more than that.

Barca paid the price by having to get rid of pretty much half their team to keep Messi, you'll have a player who'll get you no nearer to winning stuff on still massive wages, pissed off at having not won 'owt, and rapidly depreciating in value.

We walked away from Koulibaly. We walked away from Kounde. We bought Dias (leaving Koulibaly & Kounde frustrated at their current clubs and looking for moves still).

It hurts having your players go on strike to leave. I remember when Tevez did it. But you're left having to make the best out of a bad situation, and this - unfortunately - is the best you're gonna get.
 
Damanino said:
I just find it hilarious how certain we were of a top striker coming in letting Kun basically go already in April with the crocodile tears of Pep, then Nmecha did say the same as Kun that a new striker is planned to be brought in and the club kind of let them know of it and their chances due to it, and now here we are about 10 days from PL start and still trying to negotiate with Spurs who we knew exactly how hard it will be to get a deal with and we waited all June/Euros to finish and all July too to end up here.

I would have shit all over the "no negotiation under the Euros", Southgate would have had no balls to bench Kane due to it, put the bid in first of June and I am sure now we would be in a more advanced stage, either by going for another target or have him in the bag.
Click to expand...

You forgot Delap to Stoke.
 
JPBB said:
Shhh. £160m for a 28 year old Kane will be Levy's greatest deal.

In the end, everyone will see sense and the deal wont happen.

Maybe next year.
Click to expand...
Can never understand why guys like you spend so much time on an opposing teams forum....is it because there is nothing of note on your own ? If I were you I would be more concerned about losing one of your best managers, replacing him with Mourinho , sacking him,and then getting a totally average manager from Wolves. I believe you have more pressing concerns at home than polluting this forum. It does not matter if Kane comes or not. We have a manager who won the PL without a CF. You had Kane and finished seventh.Without him, you will be bottom half of the table. Think about it.
 
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