Even with the injuries I would pick Harry Kane. I can't deal with having another Raiola client after Pogba.
Haaland or Kane?
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Dont think we have chance to sign any of them, given the chance it's Kane for me. Brilliant player and complete player, can do everything.
How? He has 3 years remaining. Spurs hold all the power. Levy won't let him go without an insane fee. Quite simply, if he wanted to leave for trophies, he should've signed a shorter contract or one with a release clause in case they aren't in the champions league. Kane has absolutely 0 power here. He can say he wants to leave all he wants, but he's turning 28 and is signed on until 2024 when he'll be 31. Just like De Gea never left, how Pogba is still here, how Messi couldn't leave last summer, how Sancho is still at Dortmund and how Haaland will in all likelihood stay at Dortmund this summer. In a covid market, no club is going to spunk up enough cash to sign Kane or Haaland this summer. Haaland has his release clause next summer, so he'll be fine, but Kane will still have issues and will only get out if again, someone puts up 100+ million to make it worth it for Spurs to sell him at his age. This summer it's easily above 150m. Nobody is paying that for him or Haaland as nobody can afford it, so it's a pointless discussion.
Ignoring the impossibility of signing either this summer. There's nothing more long term about Haaland. It's well known he wants to succeed across many leagues and move around in his career. You aren't getting more than 1 contract out of him anyway, and at that point, it's the same as Kane.
It isn't pointless, far from it. If Spurs don't secure Cl football and Kane asked for a transfer it's very much on. Very rare a player stays once requesting a transfer.
Asking to leave is different to submitting a formal transfer request. And still requires a crazy fee. Or the club can still say no. Kane has very little power here. If he is to leave, best chance is abroad as Levy won't want to sell to a "rival". And still, it'll require a fee that nobody can actually afford this summer because of how covid had affected finances.
This... i fully expext to be watching martial gash up chance after chance for us next season
Levy not sell to a rival?
He would sell to Chavs /Arsenal if the money's right. Level in the game for money nothing else. We shall agree to disagree and if they don't get CL football and hands a transfer request he's gone.We can only speculate but I wouldn’t be surprised if Erling goes for around 125m.
If this turns out to be true, our best bet is probably that City buy Haaland...
Because, as it stands, I really can't see any very good reason why Kane would choose us over City.
Sad state of affairs - but there you go, reality at the moment.
Haaland has a contract with a 68m release clause in 2022, meaning he will go this summer. But as you said, has age on his side so clubs will be willing to spend more knowing they might have 10 years of service in their investment.
Kane's contract runs out in 2024 and a proven striker in the PL and at 27 still has plenty of years left.
As much as I'd love that debate and get Kane for £100m and a defender alongside Maquire, i don't see a £50m price tag difference between the two given differences in contract.
So, £150m for either - Haaland it is in in a dream world.
Either one would likely pick City over United, but that leaves an excellent option to go for. It's like 1A and 1B, I think Kane would have a bigger impact, but Haaland is constantly developing and already one of the best strikers in the world. With Kane, you feel like he would stay here past his first contract, not so much with Haaland, but the age difference is also big. I'd probably go for Kane myself because I know he'd do excellent and he'd be a more stable option for the long-term, we have to see how Haaland adapts to the premier league but I'd be surprised if he didn't do so quickly himself.
Kane - known quantity and best 9 in country, also think his injuries are overstated.
I have concerns with forward players coming from the Bundesliga - too many duds in recent memory, and it makes me wonder whether Haaland is as good as people reckon he is.
I have concerns with forward players coming from the Bundesliga - too many duds in recent memory, and it makes me wonder whether Haaland is as good as people reckon he is.
Both have their own risks, with Kane it will be the question of if the injuries will be more recurring as he gets older, and if he can keep this level up as he gets older.
With Haaland its mainly Raiola business and adaptability to PL.
But i’d side with Haaland on this, just because of his young age and potential improvement.
With Haaland its mainly Raiola business and adaptability to PL.
But i’d side with Haaland on this, just because of his young age and potential improvement.
There's another way at looking at this comparison. We are two seasons away from a decade since fergie retired and we have never been close to challenging for the title. Kane is a guarantee of goals, the finished article. He can hold up the ball and provide assists. He maybe enough to give us a PL title. He has 5-6 at top level left (upto age 32-33 before a drop off).
Haaland has bags of potential but needs time to develop into a all round centre forward. No doubt he will but that will take time and experience. He's such an indvidualist player that the team needs to be built around him. That will tske time. Also how long if he's at Utd before riola wants him to move onto Madrid or Barcelona? 2-3 years?
Neither are realisitc for us unfortunately. Kane could only happen if he hands in a official transfer request and even then Levy will make it as difficult as possible and draw the process out for as long as possible before we could get him.
This could be a very interesting summer in the CF market. Kane, Mbappe, Haaland, Neymar, Icardi, Ronaldo, Messi, Dybala, Lukaku, Werner, Griezmann could all be moving clubs. So who knows who we end up with when the music stops and there are no chairs left.
Haaland has bags of potential but needs time to develop into a all round centre forward. No doubt he will but that will take time and experience. He's such an indvidualist player that the team needs to be built around him. That will tske time. Also how long if he's at Utd before riola wants him to move onto Madrid or Barcelona? 2-3 years?
Neither are realisitc for us unfortunately. Kane could only happen if he hands in a official transfer request and even then Levy will make it as difficult as possible and draw the process out for as long as possible before we could get him.
This could be a very interesting summer in the CF market. Kane, Mbappe, Haaland, Neymar, Icardi, Ronaldo, Messi, Dybala, Lukaku, Werner, Griezmann could all be moving clubs. So who knows who we end up with when the music stops and there are no chairs left.
Ive decided I want Haaland. From what I've seen he looks brilliant and his goal record is phenomenal. But i have to admit to not watching him over a full 90 many times.
So playing devil's advocate, can any experts dismiss the fear that he's similar to lukaku in that he's technically limited, a brilliant scorer and a physical presence from a very young age. This may well be nonsense
So playing devil's advocate, can any experts dismiss the fear that he's similar to lukaku in that he's technically limited, a brilliant scorer and a physical presence from a very young age. This may well be nonsense
Kane
Front forwards:
Rashford / Kane / Greenwood.
Rashford / Kane / Sancho
Rashford / Kane / Greenwood.
Rashford / Kane / Sancho
Sorry when have Spurs sold a key player to a rival over the past 5-8 years? They refused to sell us Bale for more money than what Madrid offered. They held on to Eriksen until he was useless. The only times they sold a player against their will in the past ~10 or 12 years were Berbatov, Modric, Bale and Walker. And they sold 2 of those to Madrid, 1 to United in summer 2008 when they were very different to what they are now, and 1 to Man City for a world record fee for a fullback. Spurs just don't sell players against their will for reasonable fees.Levy not sell to a rival?
Getting Kane would soften the blow a bit if city got Haaland. That being said, when Haaland doesn’t score a goal a game he’s a bit Lukaku.
Arry. Better all round player, in his prime and is proven in the PL.
For me it's Kane by a mile.
I think our chances of getting either are slim to none at present but nothing is possible if you don't believe it is. Of the two, I prefer Kane - a lot less drama and will take us to another level a lot quicker.
He does most his work in the 12 yard box, whereas for me, Kane offers so much more. Even when he drops into that "quarter back" role, he can just lead Rashford or the right winger through with a peach of a ball, from wide areas or centrally. He's just too class in every part of his game.
I think Haaland is a quicker player but his all round play isn't on the level of Kane. I'd go as far to say if SAF was still here, even after there was this whole deal of him never doing business with Levy again, he would have made certain Harry Kane was a United player already.
Haaland by far.
Just curious about how you rationalize this. Are you considering only current footballing ability? Or also culture fit, risk/reward, agent issues, cost etc.?
Haaland. Not even close. Don't want Kane anywhere near a United shirt.
It's all subjective of course - we are all drawn to players more or less than another person might be. But the way I justify this is:
- Kane has demonstrated loyalty to an employer, he goes about his business in a manner that's diligent and puts his club first. Haaland is still young and will only naturally be influenced by Raiola or others in a light that might not always be beneficial for the club. From a personality perspective I really, really like Kane.
- Kane is a better player, simply put. A lot of Haaland's work is actually done in the 12 yard box, and as another poster correctly put, if he's not scoring it can be a bit of a Lukaku impact when cold. Kane on the other hand is simply immense in his hold up play. He's smart when he backs into players, he's more often than not making the right decisions deep into the pitch, and can pick out a player from wide positions or centrally from deep areas and set them through on goal. That suits our personnel moreso than Haaland.
- Kane is a player who will join and stay for the remainder of his career most likely. You're looking at around 6 years + of peak with his style of play assuming he keeps his injuries at bay, which I think he's done. Haaland is more than likely going to move around a few clubs. He's only 20 and his next club very likely won't be more than 4/5 years. In fact if he joined here, with Raiola as the agent, you're looking at a circus to push to leave after 3 years.
The Haaland situation will be an interesting "first test" for Fletcher and Murtough, not because I want them to sign him, but because I wonder if they incorporate Raiola/Haaland's ambitions in line with long term planning of their own, and realize it's not a sustainable transfer to commit to.
Neither. Back Greenwood/Martial to finally kick on and get three other top players in positions we need instead. The fees being spoken about are ridiculous in this market - revisit next summer.
I understand where you are coming from and it makes logical sense the way to describe it. Kane definitely is more matured, has proven pedigree, and is English and is far less demanding than Haaland. He hasn't moved from Dortmund yet and there is a circus around him.
My only reluctance is Kane's injury record and our past history of failing to integrating high-profile marquee players within the team. We have failed with Sanchez and Pogba (to an extent) while our relatively under the radar signing (Bruno) is probably the best signing since C Ronaldo. Splurging the money on Kane will be a really high risk given one serious injury can rob us off the peak years that we were hoping to enjoy and tighten our pursestrings for years.
I really don't mind if Haaland wants to leave for one of the Spanish clubs or PSG after 4-5 years if we can win a couple of PL titles and possibly a CL. I think it's far less riskier from a risk/reward standpoint. And... we don't have to deal with that idiot Levy.
I think Kanes injuries are behind him. He might miss 4 weeks in a season but that's not too bad in my opinion. For me he's like a RVP signing a couple years early.
Simply can´t say no to 20y old 30+ goal scorer. Almost 1.00 goals per game this season.
You will make your money back with Haaland.
What's the point in doing that though? Roll forward to T+3, you're going to be in the same position as you were 3 years ago with a Haaland shaped hole in your squad. Kane would have moved on to say, City and they'd be set for more years while we rely on hoping a similar player is available. It will take away from other areas that might need fixing at that point and you're just taking steps back again.
The resale value is a factor but it's not as significant as people are making out. At the end of the day if 150m (or whatever it is) gets you world class performances for a period of 6 years or so, then it's going be seen as money well spent even from a business standpoint.
I would have said Haaland every time because of longevity but after Minos tour I really don’t want him or any mino player again. If we get him and keep Pogba just brace yourselves for the inevitable soundbytws when we don’t win everything next year. Kane. Leader. Who is his agent? Cracking player. Cheaper. PL experience. His fitness and age are major red flags for a deal north of 100 million though and the big and, the glazers haven’t a notion of paying that much for any one player this summer. It’ll be Sancho if we splash at all. This is just the pace we do big deals at.
Can you expand on this? People keep bringing up the injury whilst forgetting he's actually been alright in terms of appearances.
And his age is less of a factor when you consider his playing style. He's not an explosive player who relies on pace or trickery - you can point to Lewa as how such a striker can perform with time. Heck Vardy is what 34 and only just looks to be slowing down now.
We can only see what happens if they don't get CL football. Hopefully United can make that more difficult for them tomorrow
Hands up I actually said this without checking. He’s only missed about 500 days in his whole career which is pretty decent. Pogba has missed 400 since he moved here for context. Yeah I really like the idea of Kane. He’s another leader. Seems super professional so if he gets a bit of luck with injuries there’s no reason we can’t get quite a long time out of him. It’s also not my money so what do i care. He’d be a class signing. I wonder though. Surely there’s someone under the radar for half the price that could be nearly as effective. This would be Kane’s last move. You know he’ll run through brick walls to win titles wherever he ends up
Eriksen ran down his contract, they wanted to keep him and said they'd match financial demands of other clubs if it was an issue of salary. When he made it clear he was leaving, they decided to sell early in January to get some sort of a fee at least.
Also, the dynamic changes when a player hands in a transfer request. You're absolutely right in saying Spurs are immensely difficult to deal with but their hand becomes a fair bit weaker when a transfer request comes in.