Harry Kane | Bayern Munich player

[DutchSerb]

I'm not convinced he brings us a title in those 2-3 years. If I thought that was a high probability I would definitely be for it even if he was done as an elite striker in that time, because it would mean so much. That's probably the difference between RvP and Kane for me...this squad is just okay, it's not just about sticking the cherry on top.

I just think it takes far more than a striker, and if we buy Kane we are deferring other needs because he's so expensive. But more than the expense my major worry is that by the time we get round to ironing everything out we could be sat scratching our heads about why we bought an aging Kane who is now trending downwards when we could have taken a longer term perspective and bought someone who will grow as we build this squad. There's a real danger of short term thinking coming back to bite us on the ass as the squad and Harry Kane head in different directions. If we buy a younger striker I am confident that with the right pick everything will be working in tandem.

You make good points, but looking at the current striker market I'd say Kane is our best bet. Nobody knows how Kolo Muani or Osimhen will translate to the PL and they are both equally if not more expensive. I'd want Vlahovic if he's available, but other than them the market is pretty scarce and we need to have a competitive team for next season, especially the way the PL is looking these days. I don't see a cheaper guy like Goncalo Ramos as a long term problem solver either. I don't like short term thinking, but Kane would solve our biggest issue straight away and by the time he needs to be replaced our team, or club as a whole, SHOULD be in better shape. This is one of the rare occasions where I'm convinced the short term option is the best option out there, but yes there is always the danger that it doesn't work out how we expect it to.

I'm also not convinced that he would bring us a guaranteed title, but I don't believe in title or bust. We should be aiming to be consistent and at least compete and not go anywhere near the Europa League places again. At least with Kane in this squad I don't see us falling out of top 4 next season (or the one after that), but that's how I see it.

 

[Lash]

You aren't following.
Their squad is in need of major investment across all areas of the pitch, including GK. They will almost certainly need to sell in order to fix a lot of these issues, and £100m is a big opportunity cost of keeping Kane on for an extra year and seeing him leave for free anyway. That's the first point.

The second is the reputational damage. If Harry Kane is made to stay an extra year then he'll go for free next season, where Chelsea will almost certainly go in for him. Levy is a nutjob but he's not the nutjob that would risk seeing Kane go to Chelsea if he can stop it.

Finally I never said the new manager will need to hang their hat on Son and Richarlson alone. You did. I said that these players can actually find form under the new manager, they aren't shit players, they're actually very good and there is a plausible scenario where a replacement striker for Kane + better form from Richarlson/Son would equate to the goals he provided. £100m is actually a feckton of money to replace an all time goalscorer. Remember there is a budget of x + player sales. The budget of x won't fix the squad issues, but £100m + x will certainly go a long way.

I am following. I agree they need major investment, even with Kane there, so weakening themselves by selling him, just means you have to spend more anyway. There's a huge opportunity cost as well if you sign a striker and he bombs. Kane is guaranteed goals for spurs.

There's reputational damage selling this summer too, selling their all time goal scorer after their worst season in a while.

That's such a gamble though. You need two players to find all those goals and hope whoever you sign, hits the ground running. Firstly, is anyone going to spend £100m on him? I'm not so sure. With the stadium debt, missing out on CL, I don't really see them having a big budget anyway. We're being quoted 40m for Diogo Costa, Kim Min-jae perceived as a bargain is 40m and then when you get to strikers 100m appears to be the starting point. That's before taking into account who's actually going to want to come.

If I see a spurs fan who actually wants to sell to us for 80-100m, then fine, but I mainly see people on here rationalising how we'll sign him.

 

[IrishRedDevil]

Get him and we automatically jump from 4th to 2nd / challenging for the title.

 

[cyberman]

Get him and we automatically jump from 4th to 2nd / challenging for the title.

Give us a striker who scores in 25 different league games across a season and we 100 percent challenge for the title

 

[slored1]

I feel he will come. Spurs are out of Europe and they have no other assets to raise money. We need a striker. It is written in the stars.

 

[Abraxas]

You make good points, but looking at the current striker market I'd say Kane is our best bet. Nobody knows how Kolo Muani or Osimhen will translate to the PL and they are both equally if not more expensive. I'd want Vlahovic if he's available, but other than them the market is pretty scarce and we need to have a competitive team for next season, especially the way the PL is looking these days. I don't see a cheaper guy like Goncalo Ramos as a long term problem solver either. I don't like short term thinking, but Kane would solve our biggest issue straight away and by the time he needs to be replaced our team, or club as a whole, SHOULD be in better shape. This is one of the rare occasions where I'm convinced the short term option is the best option out there, but yes there is always the danger that it doesn't work out how we expect it to.

I'm also not convinced that he would bring us a guaranteed title, but I don't believe in title or bust. We should be aiming to be consistent and at least compete and not go anywhere near the Europa League places again. At least with Kane in this squad I don't see us falling out of top 4 next season (or the one after that), but that's how I see it.

The "Nobody knows how X will translate to the PL" line can be said for every single signing that comes from overseas, if it was such a concern we'd have difficulty ever making a move in the market for the intertia that feeling creates. It's a good justification if me or you are tasked with finding a striker as novice laymen because we do not have much data or experience and should go for safety, but we are supposed to be a world class footballing institution with highly paid and skilled staff. The reality is, people say this striker market is bad, but the next great strikers ARE out there and there are probably also strikers that are underrated and well known. They have to be out there, logically speaking. There is not going to be a situation where in 2-3 years there are zero good strikers available that aren't called Harry Kane or Victor Osimhen. There is also a wider net than Kolo Muani or Ramos, but they are indeed potential names.

The fact is, every transfer contains some element of risk, the only thing is where that risk exists and what is acceptable risk. Now, the risk with Harry Kane of his immediate performance being below a baseline expectation will be incredibly low because of how proven he is, his quality and his experience and I understand that attraction. The risk is being placed a few seasons down the line. In fact, it is probably true to say that each season of Harry Kane's contract will entail more risk of a decline in physical performance because I have yet to see the footballer that holds back time, as comforting as this Lewandowski "best guess" comparison is. The reason I find this risk unacceptable is I think it is wrong strategically.

I understand your point about Kane ensuring top 4. He more or less should. But if you consider that we've operated with a part-time footballer in Anthony Martial and Wout Weghorst up front, there is a hell of a lot of scope for improvement there anyway. I don't think Harry Kane powering us to 4th is going to be a cause for celebration, so while it's not win or the world implodes, it would be dubious to say it paid off if that's what we achieve for our 100 million.

We can get around 90% of my concerns by actually being a sensible football club and trying to get him for free, though. That allows us to strengthen this squad as a whole with current funds which is part of why I think it is a misjudgment to put all our eggs on Kane right now, and we take on significantly less risk as a result.

 

[Roboc7]

What exactly is the rationale behind people advocating 80-100 million on him this summer, anyway? What exactly are we really envisaging him doing next season that justifies this fee, when you can just get into his and his agent's ear and throw a huge paycheque at them both for the following summer? I can't get my head around that situation.

It’s too much money and he won’t turn us into title challengers. Bur we are absolutely desperate for a striker and it would buy the new owners and new staff time to rebuild. Competition for top 4 is so tough now and with all the uncertainty around the ownership this will be a challenging summer, if Kane kept us in top 4 whilst we start building a team it might be worth it.

 

[Todd]

He's not world class now. Did you see the World Cup? He did nothing.

I don't doubt he'll score 20 goals a season if he comes. Just think we can do better.

There are maybe 3 strikers in the world as good or better than Kane, if we're not considering Mbappe a #9. Haaland isn't leaving City any time soon, and I highly doubt Lewa is going to leave Barca. Osimhen is likely leaving, but I truly think he'd cost 40 million more than Kane.

If we're going to invest 120-130 million in scoring goals, I think it's smarter to buy Kane for now and Hojlund hoping he'll be a long-term solution, rather than putting all our eggs in one basket on Osimhen. At least with Kane you already know he can do it consistently in the EPL.

 

[Abraxas]

It’s too much money and he won’t turn us into title challengers. Bur we are absolutely desperate for a striker and it would buy the new owners and new staff time to rebuild. Competition for top 4 is so tough now and with all the uncertainty around the ownership this will be a challenging summer, if Kane kept us in top 4 whilst we start building a team it might be worth it.

Wouldn't you back us to finish top 4 with a young striker (or anyone not called Kane), a keeper, a midfielder to support Casemiro and Eriksen so they're not dieing on their arse, and maybe this Kim fella that's getting a lot of press? Because we can do that if we don't replenish Levy's ISA.

I'm not sure why the eggs should go into the Kane basket to feel confident about that. We've got a good manager, a half decent squad and we can afford to back what should be natural development. We can even be cheeky and try to get Kane for free. We risk him going elsewhere on a free of course, but that's not so scary to me, the attraction of the free compared to paying 100 million is far greater. If he thinks he's got a better future at a club not called Man Utd good luck to him...

 

[Wilt]

I agree with what some are saying, he’s very good but a total waste of money.

 

[cyberman]

Wouldn't you back us to finish top 4 with a young striker (or anyone not called Kane), a keeper, a midfielder to support Casemiro and Eriksen so they're not dieing on their arse, and maybe this Kim fella that's getting a lot of press? Because we can do that if we don't replenish Levy's ISA.

I'm not sure why the eggs should go into the Kane basket to feel confident about that. We've got a good manager, a half decent squad and we can afford to back what should be natural development. We can even be cheeky and try to get Kane for free. We risk him going elsewhere on a free of course, but that's not so scary to me, the attraction of the free compared to paying 100 million is far greater. If he thinks he's got a better future at a club not called Man Utd good luck to him...

Who says we’re paying 100m for Kane? That kind of bleeds into your post as if Kane is the most expensive option

 

[Offside]

I think it would be a masterstoke to buy him with a younger striker. On his own there would be a lot of pressure and he’s not getting any younger.

 

[Hammondo]

What do you expect from buying him? We will spend a huge amount for about 2 seasons and not win any major trophies. It's such a silly idea to buy him.

 

[Roboc7]

Wouldn't you back us to finish top 4 with a young striker (or anyone not called Kane), a keeper, a midfielder to support Casemiro and Eriksen so they're not dieing on their arse, and maybe this Kim fella that's getting a lot of press? Because we can do that if we don't replenish Levy's ISA.

I'm not sure why the eggs should go into the Kane basket to feel confident about that. We've got a good manager, a half decent squad and we can afford to back what should be natural development. We can even be cheeky and try to get Kane for free. We risk him going elsewhere on a free of course, but that's not so scary to me, the attraction of the free compared to paying 100 million is far greater. If he thinks he's got a better future at a club not called Man Utd good luck to him...

I’d say you’d only get a striker and a keeper for price of Kane. Kane is more likely to keep us in top 4 in the short term but longer term i’d prefer we spread money further and build a team over next 2-3 years as that’s what we need to do.

When look at spine of our team we need to invest in younger players and gap between us and City is a lot more than Harry Kane.

 

[Wilt]

What do you expect from buying him? We will spend a huge amount for about 2 seasons and not win any major trophies. It's such a silly idea to buy him.

Goals goals goals …...you know, the things that help win games titles and trophies.

Have a word with yourself.

 

[Sandikan]

What do you expect from buying him? We will spend a huge amount for about 2 seasons and not win any major trophies. It's such a silly idea to buy him.

You could probably say this for any player or set of players though. So is anything worth doing?

 

[Abraxas]

Who says we’re paying 100m for Kane? That kind of bleeds into your post as if Kane is the most expensive option

80 million. 100. It doesn't really change much.

 

[cyberman]

80 million. 100. It doesn't really change much.

Of course it does. I’m struggling to name a striker we would get for a lot cheaper than 80m that would make a big difference to our team for the risk to be even worth it.

 

[Bastian]

Wonder what a poll would yield on an acceptable price.

One year on his contract left and he's 30 this summer.

 

[Hammondo]

You could probably say this for any player or set of players though. So is anything worth doing?

But he's such a short term pick, that's my point. We get so much more value out of a younger play, with the idea of building things up, Kane would need quick results.

 

[Hammondo]

Goals goals goals …...you know, the things that help win games titles and trophies.

Have a word with yourself.

If we get Kane we are far off major trophies.

 

[VP89]

I am following. I agree they need major investment, even with Kane there, so weakening themselves by selling him, just means you have to spend more anyway. There's a huge opportunity cost as well if you sign a striker and he bombs. Kane is guaranteed goals for spurs.

Right - they need major investment, and will need the 80-100m badly this season toward it (I think with add-ons they'll get the 100m).
The point about the risk of failure is a bit random, there's a risk carried with every signing. It doesnt change the fact that they have a choice of getting big money for Kane now or see him go for free to a bitter rival in one season.

There's reputational damage selling this summer too, selling their all time goal scorer after their worst season in a while.

You won't find a single Sprus fan that chooses to keep him for one more season and risk seeing him in a Chelsea shirt. If you peer over most fan channels a lot of the Spurs contingent say he's earned his move and they'd fully understand selling him.

That's such a gamble though. You need two players to find all those goals and hope whoever you sign, hits the ground running. Firstly, is anyone going to spend £100m on him? I'm not so sure. With the stadium debt, missing out on CL, I don't really see them having a big budget anyway. We're being quoted 40m for Diogo Costa, Kim Min-jae perceived as a bargain is 40m and then when you get to strikers 100m appears to be the starting point. That's before taking into account who's actually going to want to come.

It's not "such a gamble". They aren't reliant on him just because they have seemingly shit attackers. They actually have good players who can perform with tangible output (and have in previous seasons). What they need is a proper manager to put it together, and a backing for that manager to get the striker + support cast in.

Re. your point about who is going to spend 100, I think we'd go as high as that. In fact Sam Luckhurst said there is money aside for a "record breaking fee" for a striker. We bought Maguire for £80m so you know our appetite is more than that.
Moreover with player sales you can get Kane for £100m and still afford others. Diogo Costa might have to wait but Kim Min Jae + Rabiot for free + another CM is very doable.

If I see a spurs fan who actually wants to sell to us for 80-100m, then fine, but I mainly see people on here rationalising how we'll sign him.

Again, I think you are out of touch with the Spurs sentiment here.

 

[DutchSerb]

The "Nobody knows how X will translate to the PL" line can be said for every single signing that comes from overseas, if it was such a concern we'd have difficulty ever making a move in the market for the intertia that feeling creates. It's a good justification if me or you are tasked with finding a striker as novice laymen because we do not have much data or experience and should go for safety, but we are supposed to be a world class footballing institution with highly paid and skilled staff. The reality is, people say this striker market is bad, but the next great strikers ARE out there and there are probably also strikers that are underrated and well known. They have to be out there, logically speaking. There is not going to be a situation where in 2-3 years there are zero good strikers available that aren't called Harry Kane or Victor Osimhen. There is also a wider net than Kolo Muani or Ramos, but they are indeed potential names.

The fact is, every transfer contains some element of risk, the only thing is where that risk exists and what is acceptable risk. Now, the risk with Harry Kane of his immediate performance being below a baseline expectation will be incredibly low because of how proven he is, his quality and his experience and I understand that attraction. The risk is being placed a few seasons down the line. In fact, it is probably true to say that each season of Harry Kane's contract will entail more risk of a decline in physical performance because I have yet to see the footballer that holds back time, as comforting as this Lewandowski "best guess" comparison is. The reason I find this risk unacceptable is I think it is wrong strategically.

I understand your point about Kane ensuring top 4. He more or less should. But if you consider that we've operated with a part-time footballer in Anthony Martial and Wout Weghorst up front, there is a hell of a lot of scope for improvement there anyway. I don't think Harry Kane powering us to 4th is going to be a cause for celebration, so while it's not win or the world implodes, it would be dubious to say it paid off if that's what we achieve for our 100 million.

We can get around 90% of my concerns by actually being a sensible football club and trying to get him for free, though. That allows us to strengthen this squad as a whole with current funds which is part of why I think it is a misjudgment to put all our eggs on Kane right now, and we take on significantly less risk as a result.

We did get it done with WW and Martial, but we needed Spurs, Liverpool and Chelsea to completely implode for that to happen. Next year is going to be very tough for us with this frontline so although Kane getting us top 4 wouldn't be cause for celebration for some, it would at least make us a stable side again.

If you're saying scrap all that and let's hunt for those gems in South America etc. ourselves instead of letting our competition pick them up, I'd like it if we finally went that route, especially after failing to get Enzo Fernandez and seeing another talent in Julian Alvarez do well in the Prem. I've been wanting them to do that for a long time.

But the reality is our board will probably go for a big money signing up front (as they always do..) and I'd rather it be a safe bet like Kane that adds leadership up front that could massively benefit our young wingers, already plays in the national team with a lot of our players and has proven to be a great goalscorer for years than go for broke on a prospect that won't live up to his astronomical fee (Sancho, Martial, Antony although I'll give him time) like Kolo Muani, Sesko, whoever. If we bust on this one we would still need to seek a replacement in three years. This is just guessing obviously, Kolo Muani/Sesko/Ramos might be the next coming of Jesus for all I know, I just find it hard to put faith in our board to get it right after all these years of overpaying for players that couldn't fulfill their potential.

I also don't think Kane will cost 100m on a 1yr contract but we'll see how it unfolds. If he is truly 100m I'd say pull out. 60-70m range would be fair. If that's not possible I agree with you, we should look for a diamond in the rough instead of selling our kidneys just to gamble on a striker who had 1 or 2 decent seasons, but that's how we roll nowadays I guess. And seeing some of these rumours and projected fees make me want Kane all the more.

 

[Abraxas]

Of course it does. I’m struggling to name a striker we would get for a lot cheaper than 80m that would make a big difference to our team for the risk to be even worth it.

80 or 100 million made no difference to my concerns around his contractual position, his age, and what I see as the strategic risk of spending so much on him right now. That's what I meant. It's within your argument that there may not be any better options for cheaper that the difference between those sums may actually matter. But my argument was also a little wider than simply who is the best player available right now.

You don't need to name a striker though. It wouldn't change the concerns around Kane if you did or didn't name one, I don't really expect you to know everyone that's available in the detail required. People here often act like it's a weakness within an argument if we don't offer forward names, but it's not, it's acknowledging and being comfortable with uncertainty and a statement of the obvious that we lack data and expertise (as well as time) compared to individuals who are employed to do it.

I also think your premise is dubious considering we haven't really had a striker all year. I think there should be many strikers that would have performed better. I wouldn't advocate for every striker that would have performed better of course, as ETH says good is not good enough, but I am convinced talent is out there because it always is. It's just that as a football club we tend to wait for the vision to arrive and hence often pay huge sums or we've also had this habit of getting players at the tail end, which has often been a poor outcome. But maybe with the current staff we can identify talent.

 

[Ted Lasso]

I agree with what some are saying, he's very good but a total waste of money.

Buy him, start him, drop Bruno to the bench or push him to the wing and strengthen the midfield with another player that gives the ball away less consistently from that position. With Kane dropping often you get the creatively centrally that Bruno might otherwise provide.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Does anyone remember which European competition Spurs played in the season Levy refused to let Harry Kane join city?

 

[Dempsey19]

Are we interested? Yes.

Will we sign him ? No.

Simple as that really. Levy isn't gonna play ball, not like we didn't know that already though. 60 million for Bayern or elevety billion for us.

 

[Idxomer]

Does anyone remember which European competition Spurs played in the season Levy refused to let Harry Kane join city?

Conference league.

 

[RedB4ndiT]

Let's give them Sancho to sweeten the deal.

 

[VP89]

Does anyone remember which European competition Spurs played in the season Levy refused to let Harry Kane join city?

He had 3 seasons left on his deal then. Now he has one. There was a number in mind for Levy that wasn't being met. It won't be the same number now.

 

[Wilt]

If we get Kane we are far off major trophies.

Beginning to wonder if you know who Kane is?

 

[sullydnl]

Beginning to wonder if you know who Kane is?

A guy who has never been able to carry a team to a trophy up to now.

We're a lot more than just Harry Kane away from having a serious chance of winning the league. The CL, whatever, teams can go on lucky runs so it's hard to rule out whoever we sign.

 

[marktan]

Great player but we need to move away from signings great players who've given there best years elsewhere. No other top team like Liverpool, City, Real or Barca does this.

Osimhen isnt as good but you can build a team long term around him.

 

[Bastian]

Great player but we need to move away from signings great players who've given there best years elsewhere. No other top team like Liverpool, City, Real or Barca does this.

Osimhen isnt as good but you can build a team long term around him.

Hazard. Lewa.

 

[GledTheRed]

City will sign him for the cup games.

 

[Attila]

Will either join us this summer for 100m or will reunite with Pochetinno at Chelsea on a free transfer

Poch and Kane at Chelsea would be painful for spurs fans

 

[Wilt]

A guy who has never been able to carry a team to a trophy up to now.

We're a lot more than just Harry Kane away from having a serious chance of winning the league. The CL, whatever, teams can go on lucky runs so it's hard to rule out whoever we sign.

Utd…. scored 52 goals

Kane…. scored 28 goals (playing for fecking useless Spurs)

How many goals would Kane have scored playing for a half decent club?

 

[DutchSerb]

Great player but we need to move away from signings great players who've given there best years elsewhere. No other top team like Liverpool, City, Real or Barca does this.

Osimhen isnt as good but you can build a team long term around him.

Hazard. Lewa.

Zidane went to Madrid when he was the exact same age as Kane is now...

 

[sullydnl]

Utd…. scored 52 goals

Kane…. scored 28 goals (playing for fecking useless Spurs)

How many would Kane have scored playing for a half decent club?

Who said he wouldn't score goals?

But as Haaland has shown at City, signing a striker who scores goals doesn't mean you just add all those goals to your pre-existing goal tally.

The gap between us and City is a hell of a lot bigger than Harry Kane alone. And I don't just mean the obvious 16+ points and 40 goals scored.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I'm really not that fussed about a Kane getting us over the line. The point is he can get us to the darnsd line. Then unlike a Spurs or an England, our OTHER world class players can help us get over it. Right now my ONLY hang up on Kane is his age and his price tag. If we get him in terms of Tenhag"s favored football he'd be like having a high scoring Dusan Tadic upfront. We all know how bloody well that went for Ajax.