slored1
Full Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2016
- Messages
- 3,532
Talk on Twitter that he is gone for 130 million plus add-ons. Such a shame for the league.
For Kane though money isn’t the only factor,I think that United would have definitely been in it if they had received positive signs from him but he probably wants to move to city onlyI don’t really follow United finances with any great rigour but we really should be getting into the mix for an on-the-market Harry Kane. He’s never a City player.
You're going to waste the money again. Just keep him for everybody's sake.Apparently we have set a deadline of tomorrow at noon for an acceptable offer. Now also hearing the deal is very close and may even be signed tonight - I reckon it will be £130 million with ad-on's that could take the final fee well over £150 million.
Realistically we need about 4/5 new players to rebuild the side - selling Kane will greatly help us do thatYou're going to waste the money again. Just keep him for everybody's sake.
Sounds like Levy wants to sell if he’s set a deadline. Logic states that if he would accept £130m + addons tomorrow he would accept it next week too.Apparently we have set a deadline of tomorrow at noon for an acceptable offer. Now also hearing the deal is very close and may even be signed tonight - I reckon it will be £130 million with ad-on's that could take the final fee well over £150 million.
Everybody knows that it's a joke.If this happens FFP is a joke
Next week doesn't leave us enough time to sign the number of players we need - for the good of the club it needs dealt with one way or the other this week.Sounds like Levy wants to sell if he’s set a deadline. Logic states that if he would accept £130m + addons tomorrow he would accept it next week too.
I suspect we have several deals lined up ready to go just waiting for the button to be pushed.Isn't this getting a bit late in the transfer window for Spurs? Surely they would want to reinvest the Kane fee in 2-3 really strong additions to the squad to compensate, but the further we go in the window, the more difficult it will be to find these players. Maybe they are already working behind the scenes on this, but going into the season without Kane and having reinvested would be horrible for them.
What's the point of it then?Everybody knows that it's a joke.
Some talk about Vlahovic from Fiorentina and Martinez as you said from Inter - if we sell Kane we need to buy two strikers. We also need another central defender, probably a central midfielder and a right back.Who are Spurs getting as their Kane replacement? Any names? The lad at Inter has already rejected them. Hijacking Tammy Abraham isn't a bad shout
Well Ibrahimovic didn't last long and Messi was still at an age where if his manager told him to run, he would run. Other than Lewandowski the rest were all mobile, well rounded forwards masquerading as strikers.I don't know where this idea that Pep has a particular kind of striker comes from.
This is a manager that has used Ibrahimovic, Lewandowski, Fabregas, Messi, Sterling, Goetze as striker. He won't have a problem with Kane.
To punish smaller clubs.What's the point of it then?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Any team worrying about balancing the books can't afford a player like Kane. He will cost well over £150 million including agent fees etc - add to that £350-400.000 a week. So over 5 years he will cost £250 million - and his value will at best be £15-20 million afterwards (as he will be 33 years old). Would Kane give United a big chance at the title ? Yes - but we have to think about the future as well - not just a title here and now.I don’t really follow United finances with any great rigour but we really should be getting into the mix for an on-the-market Harry Kane. He’s never a City player.
If Levy doesn't sellIs there a chance he'll stay after all? If City somehow can't pull this through, I can't see anybody else pursuing Kane for the price being mentioned. Chelsea should've gone for him IMO (maybe they did and Harry didn't want them?), but other than that surely nobody is paying 120+m for him (PSG are stacked)?
For me personally Harry hasn't done enough publicly to get this move to city. Put in a formal transfer request, make it known you have. So what if you lose £18mil in "loyalty" payments, City will pay you that back.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It appears City still think they can get him on the cheap, they are really leaving Harry pissing in the wind here.
The word is that we have set a deadline of noon today so we should know either way soon.CIty need to stop posturing and trying to appear to drive a hard bargain. Everyone knows they will eventually pay up and get the player they want
Titles won't be stripped, neither will points be deducted. A fine? Sure.It's true, though they'll only get done for prior seasons in the current court case. Presumably they'll get a retrospective points deduction, a massive multi million pound fine and be stripped of their titles in 11/12 and 13/14.
It'll be embarrassing but I don't think it'll harm them too much in the present.
Don't see Grealish improving them much. Kane is a different matter though, we'll need to be thinking about 100 points for the title if City sign him.
Totally agree. Honestly, I don't know why FFP exists. I don't see the point. Look how City mugged off UEFA's FFP investigation, basically by just refusing to cooperate.To punish smaller clubs.
Most clubs that get penalised about this are mid/lower table PL clubs or Championship clubs.
State backed clubs won't get punished. Everyone goes on about FFP as if it actually exists for these clubs.
It was one of the Sky sports people who actually said, FFP is irrelevant if you have the best lawyers and City, PSG have the best lawyers, they find the loophole and exploit it.
That sounds like posturing. Were City to come through with £150m on deadline day Spurs will take it.The word is that we have set a deadline of noon today so we should know either way soon.
It's just a name now FFP. It is clear to see how it works, the top level of football is so corrupt as well.Totally agree. Honestly, I don't know why FFP exists. I don't see the point. Look how City mugged off UEFA's FFP investigation, basically by just refusing to cooperate.
To be honest, while I have no love for the Stockport sky blues, I'm quite happy City won their FFP case against UEFA. It blew up the charade and will hopefully help us see the back of FFP.
FFP was brought in at the behest of the big clubs who don't want to see another City, another Chelsea or another Leicester. They hate the idea of foreign billionaires coming in and making something of small clubs. However, as you say, because those billionaires are richer than Midas all that happens is it ends up with clubs down the pyramid getting absolutely battered.
Clubs in the Championship and lower down, who can't afford the best sports lawyers money can buy, end up having the screws turned on them. Usually when they're at their lowest ebb. The way it works is perverse IMO.
I'm confused - are you saying it's good or bad for football that billionaires can turn nothing clubs into giants simply by pumping money into them?Totally agree. Honestly, I don't know why FFP exists. I don't see the point. Look how City mugged off UEFA's FFP investigation, basically by just refusing to cooperate.
To be honest, while I have no love for the Stockport sky blues, I'm quite happy City won their FFP case against UEFA. It blew up the charade and will hopefully help us see the back of FFP.
FFP was brought in at the behest of the big clubs who don't want to see another City, another Chelsea or another Leicester. They hate the idea of foreign billionaires coming in and making something of small clubs. However, as you say, because those billionaires are richer than Midas all that happens is it ends up with clubs down the pyramid getting absolutely battered.
Clubs in the Championship and lower down, who can't afford the best sports lawyers money can buy, end up having the screws turned on them. Usually when they're at their lowest ebb. The way it works is perverse IMO.
That sounds like posturing. Were City to come through with £150m on deadline day Spurs will take it.
Now its being reported that Spurs and City are talking I think a deal is more likely than not. However, still doesn't change the fact that Kane could have and should have handled this a bit better.
I am saying its a fact of life.I'm confused - are you saying it's good or bad for football that billionaires can turn nothing clubs into giants simply by pumping money into them?
I agree that the big clubs have an agenda in supporting FFP, but that doesn't make it wrong or unnecessary in principle.