That somewhat ignores the point. Whether or not there was a “gentleman’s agreement” there would always have been a fee at which Levy would have sold and £150m was probably above market value, even for Kane. Clearly Kane was not interpreting that agreement as meaning Spurs would decline £125m so, from his perspective, Levy reneged on the agreement.
Harry Kane | Bayern Munich player
- Thread starter LawCharltonBest
- Start date
Might be shitty but when that shitty thing is worth 10s of millions to your club and not just to himself i can see why he would do it. Especially if the has never been a number written down and its just an open term like ''acceptable''.
Kane and his agent (brother?) were just dumb. Signed a new deal because they loved getting more money. They should have put a clause in the contract and be happy with a bit less money. I know footballers are spoiled and usually get what they want (after going on a striker or talking to the media) but it is refreshing to see a player actually held accountable for signing the contract. Kane wants the positives from the contract so he also has to deal with the negatives from the same contract.
Maybe having an actual professional agent instead of feeding your brother some agent-scraps money would have been the smarter option for Kane.
Imo £125m was quite the right price for Kane. He was 29 yo, had two years left on his contract. Bale went to Madrid for £85m when he was only 24 yo and had 3 years left on his contract if my memory serves me right. A bit of inflation, City are a PL club so 125m was more than right imo. Levy was simply too greedy.
He was 27 with 3 years on his contract and the striker market was not too dissimilar to what it is now. City were also considered a bit more of a rival (though barely) than they are today. If I were Levy then 150 would have seemed fair considering what the implications of losing Kane would have been
Easy for you to say that.
Levy has to replace Kane in a market where everyone knows that Spurs just received 125m. Every club will add 10m on top of their asking price if Spurs come for a new striker. Finding a player to 1 for 1 replace Kane will be impossible. Even a player close to Kane his level would be very difficult to find. I dont think Spurs would have qualified for the CL during the 21/22 season without Kane since they were only a few points above Arsenal. No CL will cost Spurs a lot of money too. Will 125m compensate for losing Kane, having a much worse team, having to buy a new player (and with Levy his buying its not exactly a sure thing that new striker wont flop like Richardlison has this season) and missing out on the CL?
The whole point here is they reportedly had a gentleman's agreement to let Kane leave for a right price.
But is 125m the right price if you consider all those factors? Levy didnt seem to think so. Kane could have prevented all this by just having a release clause in his contract.
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
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Down to you then Harry to say the only place I want to go is Man Utd,have no interest in going abroad just for your benefit
The precedent had been set by Grealish going for 100 million. Do you think Kane is worth the same as Grealish, or just a little more? In the context of Grealish being 100 million I think most would agree Kane should be worth considerably more than that at the time City were trying to get him.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
It’s levy. If you want him, you got to make a
Offer he cannot refuse. A offer that no one else is going to make. That’s probably the only way, overpaying massively and even that’s a push. Kane himself would probably have to kick up a stink alongside it.
Offer he cannot refuse. A offer that no one else is going to make. That’s probably the only way, overpaying massively and even that’s a push. Kane himself would probably have to kick up a stink alongside it.
Grealish was way overpriced but that doesn't mean Kane's right price would be much more than that imo. Anyway Grealish's deal did made Levy more greedy I think.
Lucky for us Kane only has one year left. Imo we actually don't need to make that kind of crazy offer. We only need to make the best offer then some to pay off his hatred.
Last edited:
It does though. You might think Grealish was over priced but it's a sellers market and the going rate for players is set by the buying teams.
That might be true but has nothing to do with the right price.
The 'right' price is irrelevant though isn't it. Players rarely go for the 'right' price especially if the selling team does not wish to sell.
It’s. Not. Going. To. Happen.
Levy won’t sell to us even for 125 million, which isn’t good business for us either. In fact, I’d go as far as saying Mbappe is more realistic, which is also another pipe dream (edit- unless Qatari owner comes in fast and forced a splash, but certainly would not apply to Kane).
We better start looking at the alternatives, and close out on Plan B before we lose out altogether.
Levy won’t sell to us even for 125 million, which isn’t good business for us either. In fact, I’d go as far as saying Mbappe is more realistic, which is also another pipe dream (edit- unless Qatari owner comes in fast and forced a splash, but certainly would not apply to Kane).
We better start looking at the alternatives, and close out on Plan B before we lose out altogether.
Last edited:
I'm not in the "not going to happen" camp yet.
But everything that would need to happen seems unlikely. I think it would take waiting until late August, Kane refusing to train or play and saying he ONLY wants United and then a bid reaching about £100m including add-ons etc.
But everything that would need to happen seems unlikely. I think it would take waiting until late August, Kane refusing to train or play and saying he ONLY wants United and then a bid reaching about £100m including add-ons etc.
Again the right price here is a market price not the price Levy or Spurs would feel right about.
Like I said in my money lending example this should not have anything to do with Levy or Spurs do not want to sell Kane. If it does Levy shouldn't had that gentleman's agreement with Kane and should have told him something like 'I'll only let you go for the price I'd feel right' instead of 'I'll let you go for the right price'. Hope you could notice the whole difference between.
And how do you know that's not exactly what Levy said? The 'right price' as told by Levy is clearly the right price for Levy and the club. It is not the 'right price' for whatever Kane thinks it should be. This is how naive Kane and his brother were and you are falling into the same trap here.
age and length of contract should negate that however a proven goalscorer makes his weight in gold right now
Ok I surrender.
Yes exactly, the number of strikers who are guaranteed to score over 20 league goals a season can probably be counted on one hand in world football and their price will be that much higher than any other position as a result.
Ain't that the truth. One thing's for sure, any young Spurs players are surely looking at this - however big fans of the club they are - and thinking that there's no way they will let themselves fall into the same trap. Which presumably means shorter contracts, buyout clauses and a general distrust of the upper management. Not sure that that is a particularly healthy place to be - loyalty works two ways.
Poor Harry's gonna be priced out of a move again this summer...I don't think anyone will actually submit a bid for him tbh.
But the media has 2.5 months to fill so that wont stop them...copy and paste till August.
But the media has 2.5 months to fill so that wont stop them...copy and paste till August.
no doubt Kane has been a bit fuked over by Levy at the same token, he's done it to himself by allowing the club to hold him for ransom
Kane will probably sign a new deal at Spurs and fall into Levy's trap again. He loves Spurs and cannot see anything past that.
It just shows the hunger in him to win things. If he pushed a move 2 years ago he would have won 2 PL and a treble, not all footballers are driven by winning stuff though.
It just shows the hunger in him to win things. If he pushed a move 2 years ago he would have won 2 PL and a treble, not all footballers are driven by winning stuff though.
Yeah he's stuck between a rock and a hard place
He did push for a move but at the end of the day Levy holds all the cards here. The nonsense about him not being driven to win stuff is just complete bollocks.
I agree with this post so much! It’s really not just the price for services of Harry Kane but the larger issue of the overall value for Spurs.
The flip side of this is that at a certain point, there won’t be any value left for the buying club. I think for everyone involved, Kane leaving on a free next year sounds about the best solution (unless of course Kane decides to commit another 4-5 years to Spurs).
Them keeping a player who wants to leave, all be if one of their greatest ever, to allow him to walk for nothing next year shows a lack of ambition and ideas in my opinion. They’re clinging on to him but what have they won with him in the team so far? They need to move on. It’s his time to try a new challange and 100mil can go towards whatever budget they have already for the new manager. They made him stay before and he honoured it. Let the man leave and try something new. He would also of won multiple trophies at this point if he had of left. He must be itching for his contract to finish.
I get the sentiment, I truly do. But I guess where Spurs are, with a new manager, they probably feel if Kane can drag them to a CL spot this year, they might be able to attract a better league of talent as compared to what they have now. Plus remember, there’s no good striker out there in the 100 mil mark who:
- can make an instant impact in the league (low risk) and really replace Kane for Spurs, and
- would be willing to come to Spurs with no CL football.
Yeh fair points, also let's be honest if they sold for 150m, every club and their dog knows it when they have to try and source replacements. Even now at say 80m it would be a tough business/football balanced decision for Spurs to make. Losing Kane potentially means Son's output is minimised, and they aren't going to be attractive enough for any other tier 1 striker. They could go all out for Hojland and offer guaranteed 1st team football and hope it pays off but other than that I think they are looking at the Martials of this world
Fairly depressing you seem ok with your club operating this way, taking advantage of the naivety of young loyal servants. If I was in your position, I’d be hoping the club now did the right thing by Kane and rebuilt from there.
The issue with this is that we basically can’t get anything done if we were dead set on Kane as a priority. It’s naïve at best to wait until then and in reality pure idiocy. If Levy says no then tell him to feck himself and move on, not sit around like a school girl with a crush hoping Kane makes a stink and THEN maybe hoping Levy allows us to pay an obscene fee
Are you serious? Why should I care about Harry Kane's career? All I care about is my club being successful and we are much more likely to be successful with Kane in the team. Kane has a contract with Spurs and is bound to it until such time as another club meets our valuation or his contract ends. That's how this works. My club is perfectly entitled to work this way and I'm in total support of it.
This is how every other club in the league works as well you know.
Last edited:
Harry Kane is not one of those strikers though. In the last five seasons, he scored more than 20 league goals twice. The word 'guarantee' is thrown about way too lightly these days.
On Redcafe, two sentiments somehow manage to coexist peacefully and in perfect harmony:
- Clubs should develop organically, with smart signings and players from their own academy, spend within their means, and gradually build up to challenge the elite.
- At the same time, those same clubs should not EVER stand in the way of their prized assets if those wish to join a bigger club. See how many people hate Dortmund for not selling Sancho on the cheap the moment we asked them.
He has done six times out his 9 seasons playing as a regular starter for Spurs. Not many other strikers in world football can say the same.
You keep using the phrases “right price” or “market price.” If it was the “right price,” Kane would be in City Blue. The right price and/or market price is determined by what someone is willing to buy a good or service for and at what cost the seller is willing to offer that good or service. A player’s market value is not determined by what fans think should be fair. I hate Levy and want Kane at United as much as anyone, but he absolutely has a say in to what constitutes the “right price.” He didn’t think 125m was it.