Yeah you're right for the age and contract left. But still imo 125m was a fair price for Kane back then. City thought the same and I don't think they were wrong. Plus we couldn't even be sure if 150m was the right price for Levy. What if he felt it was 200m?
And imo it's not about what Spurs would lose here but all about a market price. And imo 125m was about right for Kane. In fact anything more than 100m was a right price imo. 100m is already some really crazy money tbh.
If we're talking about the issues Spurs might face losing Kane and a gentleman's agreement imo it's exactly like when you lend someone money and that one gives you his words to pay you back in a year. But when the time comes he tells you he can't pay you because if he pays you now he'd lose some money in his investment. And you really really need that money now. Would you be happy by then?
Yes I think if we're talking about market price. Kane should have cost around 100m and as City are a PL club 125m sounds pretty right imo.
And like the example about lending money I said above. Of course you could have prevented all that by making him to sign a loan agreement. You're stupid and too naive to believe in that guy. But that doesn't stop you to feel betrayed and angry when that guy doesn't pay you on time just because of his own interests I think?
Yeah you're right. I'm getting old I guess. No idea why but it's just like last summer to me