Even Totti won some trophies and a World Cup by Kane's age. I really don't see what Kane can win if he remains at Spurs.
Harry Kane | Bayern Munich player
- Thread starter LawCharltonBest
- Start date
If we're spending Daniel Levy money, we need to be looking elsewhere. Kane would have made sense 2-3 seasons ago but not anymore at the price Levy will demand. I hope he prices Kane out of a move and we get a younger prolific goal scorer that will be here for many years.
Too much time at a club with a loser mentality. No offence to Tottenham, because I do like them, but they're kind of a laughing stock in how they have a way of screwing everything up. Do we really want to sign someone who's been engulfed in that their whole career?
I know a few Spurs fans who are scared of this outcome but nah, there is no chance Levy or Kane would do this to Spurs. Yeah Chelsea might be crazy enough to throw a stupid fee on the table but Kane would never risk throwing his legacy with his fans down the toilet like that.
Last edited:
I think for Kane that summer City were pushing for him was the year to make the move. At the age of 30, with the amount Spurs will ask for him, the list of clubs who can and could potentially be willing to meet the asking price is very small and Spurs would never dare to sell to one of them.
Fair enough, in that case, I can only see him moving abroad or leaving on a free next season.
Like Van Persie?
Exactly. United are pretty much his only option.
He gets more and more unappealing to me the more I think about it. I really don't see it with his leadership abilities. To me that's a huge selling point when you buy an established, top level player. You hope their experience, know how and ability to lead in the dressing room will have an impact beyond what they do on the pitch, and that the benefit of that could make up for the fact it may be a shorter term solution. I think we have seen that with Casimero to some extent. I'm not saying he has to be captain material, but I would think you want to buy a character as well as an experienced player.
I think you only get the player with Harry Kane. The undemonstrative centre forward who will go down quite easily with the ship. Who is pretty damn exceptional in most areas of the game, but has never looked like a killer on the biggest stages when club and country needed him.
To me it's just another negative to balance against the positives. And there are a few of them.
I think you only get the player with Harry Kane. The undemonstrative centre forward who will go down quite easily with the ship. Who is pretty damn exceptional in most areas of the game, but has never looked like a killer on the biggest stages when club and country needed him.
To me it's just another negative to balance against the positives. And there are a few of them.
Outside of the money, the other thing that scared me about this possible transfer is the time it will take. You know Levy will drag this on until the last day of the window. Plus we don;t seem to be able to multitask when it comes to transfers. Let's hope Matt Hargreaves is better at this job.
Better than you think!
A few 'lay of the land' thoughts:
1. Look, we are going to be squeezed very hard by FFP the coming seasons if we get owners that let ETH spend. This is basically where we are right now without any player sales and if we finish Top 4:
I.e. we could only increase our total costs with about 3k. And that is towards a ceiling that you want some marginals towards.
2. But we will of course (try) to sell players. Historically, we have been worthless at that, but who knows. Maybe that is changing. But lets say that we manage to sell Henderson, Maguire and McTominay for a total of £60m, that has the following impact:
That would result in that we could increase our costs with an additional £63m, or £66m in total. How much much is that? Well if we pay £80m on Harry Kane, give him a 4+1 contract and pay him £350k a week in salaries the yearly cost of that is app. £38.2m, and I would imagine that we would want at least a £10m margin against the FFP rules, meaning that we only could afford 'a Malacia' next to Kane if he get that much as well as a new contract for Rashford.
3. But what happens if we make the transfer you suggested? In so called player exchange transactions, we would be deemed to pay the remaining book value of the player we are trading (51m for Sancho) plus the cash sum (50m) = 101m for Kane. Kane and Sancho's salaries would be a wash, and we would replace Sancho's yearly amortization of 17m with 25m for Kane -- so this swap would only increase our yearly cost with 8m. But Sancho is on extremely high wages (he would make 75% more than Tottenham's second highest paid player).
4. Just my opinion, but I would definitely stay away from these type of transfers. And the argument 'that we did it with Casemiro' isn't convincing. We should be in a great spot moving forward -- why risk it with paying insane money to a rival for a player on the decline (I mean he is, his pressing isn't at all what it used to be) that at best got a few more years left in him? Like how easy will it be to convince our existing players to stay within a reasonable salary limit if we make signings like this?
This is the big problem I have with Kane as well.
For the money that Spurs want, I would be happy spending that money if we are getting the player Kane along with the characteristics you set out.
We will be paying £80-100m for a 30 year old who will score us goal but will he stand up when going is tough? will he get us a goal out of nowhere? I have my reservations on that side.
We need a gamechanger in that position.
I wouldn’t put Kane’s England influence against him. How many players apart from maybe a couple of GOATs have single handedly won their teams international tournaments? A game yes, but an entire tournament?
There have been other England players in the past who while being mentality monsters for their clubs disappointed for England.
Now of course the talent pool England has (but only in the attack) is bigger than ever. But that’s on Southgate to make the best out of it, not on Kane.
And Spurs is Spurs.
If he has a couple of high level seasons with us in which we win either the PL or CL then this would already be good. Most of our other top players are currently already in their prime and the time to take the next step is now and Kane could be a great addition to that. I am assuming if we go for him it’s with ETH‘s choice/blessing and he will have a plan how to use him.
There have been other England players in the past who while being mentality monsters for their clubs disappointed for England.
Now of course the talent pool England has (but only in the attack) is bigger than ever. But that’s on Southgate to make the best out of it, not on Kane.
And Spurs is Spurs.
If he has a couple of high level seasons with us in which we win either the PL or CL then this would already be good. Most of our other top players are currently already in their prime and the time to take the next step is now and Kane could be a great addition to that. I am assuming if we go for him it’s with ETH‘s choice/blessing and he will have a plan how to use him.
Just listening to an FPL podcast and the Spurs-supporting match-going host said Spurs can't play a modern style of football with Kane, which is why he's not against them letting him go. This on top of all the Spurs fans I read on their forum talking about Kane's lack of mobility and pressing (even while lauding him) is such a red flag for me.
Obviously Kane is still better than Ronaldo was last season. But I absolutely had my fill of the "he scores goals" versus "we can't play like a modern team" narrative with Ronaldo. I don't want any striker where there's a conflict between them and the ability to play a high energy pressing game.
Obviously Kane is still better than Ronaldo was last season. But I absolutely had my fill of the "he scores goals" versus "we can't play like a modern team" narrative with Ronaldo. I don't want any striker where there's a conflict between them and the ability to play a high energy pressing game.
Last edited:
That's exactly where I'm at. We really should not have to compromise between "prolific striker" and "playing a modern type of football". It's not, generally, an either/or thing for top teams.
Yep, Kane's general defensive stats aren't good and from watching Spurs he doesn't look to be doing any pressing either. He looks to be saving energy when he has the ball like Messi these days and we already have one forward who kinda does that. I don't think having 2 of the same nature is a good idea at all.
A 20+ goals/season forward should afford to do that.
Great spreadsheet but one issue all of the yearly wages are reduced by 25% this year because of Europa League Football. Jadon is not on £350k per week this season more like £250-260k plus FFP is changing to FSP Financial sustainability with 90% of Wages, Net Transfer Sales and Agent Fees all combined and as long as it’s 90% or below of Total club Revenue allowed this season , I completely agree with player sales the players that cost nothing represent the best way to deal with this summer transfer window but I’m sure you’ve overstated their wages this season considerably.Better than you think!
A few 'lay of the land' thoughts:
1. Look, we are going to be squeezed very hard by FFP the coming seasons if we get owners that let ETH spend. This is basically where we are right now without any player sales and if we finish Top 4:
I.e. we could only increase our total costs with about 3k. And that is towards a ceiling that you want some marginals towards.
2. But we will of course (try) to sell players. Historically, we have been worthless at that, but who knows. Maybe that is changing. But lets say that we manage to sell Henderson, Maguire and McTominay for a total of £60m, that has the following impact:
That would result in that we could increase our costs with an additional £63m, or £66m in total. How much much is that? Well if we pay £80m on Harry Kane, give him a 4+1 contract and pay him £350k a week in salaries the yearly cost of that is app. £38.2m, and I would imagine that we would want at least a £10m margin against the FFP rules, meaning that we only could afford 'a Malacia' next to Kane if he get that much as well as a new contract for Rashford.
3. But what happens if we make the transfer you suggested? In so called player exchange transactions, we would be deemed to pay the remaining book value of the player we are trading (51m for Sancho) plus the cash sum (50m) = 101m for Kane. Kane and Sancho's salaries would be a wash, and we would replace Sancho's yearly amortization of 17m with 25m for Kane -- so this swap would only increase our yearly cost with 8m. But Sancho is on extremely high wages (he would make 75% more than Tottenham's second highest paid player).
4. Just my opinion, but I would definitely stay away from these type of transfers. And the argument 'that we did it with Casemiro' isn't convincing. We should be in a great spot moving forward -- why risk it with paying insane money to a rival for a player on the decline (I mean he is, his pressing isn't at all what it used to be) that at best got a few more years left in him? Like how easy will it be to convince our existing players to stay within a reasonable salary limit if we make signings like this?
It’s important that we have new owners who will get a £60m allowance providing they sort the club debt out and the existing credit lines. I Totally agree with Harry Kane, we should be all over R Hojlund at half the price and a decade in front of him, not Kane.
Footballers have always played late into their 30s. It might be new to English football but this I doubt to be honest, as the league gets more tactical and less physical we will get used to seeing players play on longer.
I think Kane is the best striker available to us right now but I don’t want him because he will end up a Wayne Rooney situation. Remember when Rooney was past it and no one will accept it, the media kept shutting down any one that will question his contribution by throwing his stats at us. I have no doubt Kane will be phenomenal for us but are we a strong enough club to say bye, when he starts declining or a better option is available.
Biggest risk for Kane will be ending up on the bench of a big club. Not sure he's willing to trade a few trophies for the PL record. He'll probably stay at Spurs.
Gotta disagree buddy. His hold-up play and ball retention would suit the posession style that ETH is trying to move to.
CR7 / Henry etc really punished the teams outside of the top 6. Its where we fall short. Getting a brace and putting the game to bed early. Or having one of those games where the entire team are having a 6 out of 10 and your CR7/Henry etc, pop up with a goal against the run of play.
Kane would chance potential losses into draws and draws into wins. Also i think he will be very hungry for titles.
But can a team handle two of them not doing much work out of possession? That has been partly the problem with PSG the last couple of years with better players and they don't play in the PL.
The comments about Kane being totally immobile and not pressing enough are kind of hilarious. When fit, Martial does more than enough off ball work and pressing. No team or player presses and closes down for 90 minutes.
Having positional sense, spatial awareness, and in game IQ allows players to anticipate and be at the right place at the right time.
If Martial can suit EtH, then you damn well know Kane can. Whether or not Kane ends up at United is a different question.
Having positional sense, spatial awareness, and in game IQ allows players to anticipate and be at the right place at the right time.
If Martial can suit EtH, then you damn well know Kane can. Whether or not Kane ends up at United is a different question.
Bit risky with Haaland around. If he sticks around at city then his record mightn't last too long.
PSG's front line don't care to work much off the ball as individuals nor as a cohesive unit. They cannot be said about United. United have had a much better defensive shape and counter pressing, so the comparisons with PSG are a little odd.
City getting Haaland and Alvarez while we sign Kane will just further highlight why they do better than us.
Arsenal have also recruited sensibly by bringing in players with a significant upside or players in their prime.
There's nothing wrong with signing experienced players but in our team, we are well stocked in that department. Varane, Casemiro and Eriksen have more than enough plus we have leaders in Licha and Bruno.
This team needs young, hungry and energetic players now. I think a lot of our fans are desperate to skip steps and want us being PL winners next season which is why Kane is seems so popular. We've been overrun by so many teams this season, adding Kane to the team will only make it worse.
Arsenal have also recruited sensibly by bringing in players with a significant upside or players in their prime.
There's nothing wrong with signing experienced players but in our team, we are well stocked in that department. Varane, Casemiro and Eriksen have more than enough plus we have leaders in Licha and Bruno.
This team needs young, hungry and energetic players now. I think a lot of our fans are desperate to skip steps and want us being PL winners next season which is why Kane is seems so popular. We've been overrun by so many teams this season, adding Kane to the team will only make it worse.
Bizarre take this. He's showed up for Spurs consistently - scoring and creating goals, whether they're playing well or not. Without him they'd have been mid-table for most of the time he's been there.
He's the best striker potentially available this summer. He's one of the best in the world. Absolute no-brainer if he's available.
Which player or players fits those criteria who guarantee 20 PL goals? Are we going to pay £100 plus million for a player from an inferior league who may, or may not be good enough?
Haaland is the best forward in the world and comparing to him is pointless - there's nobody available like him. Alvarez is a very tidy player in a team that dominates most games they play in, but who couldn't lace Kane's boots as it stands.
If the club wants to compete for titles in the next 3 years, and you would assume that's the plan, for me, there's not a better option out there.
I wouldn't trust Spurs fans. I've seen some absolutely terrible opinions on the Fighting Cock. They're just trying to convince themselves that he's not single handedly keeping their club afloat since he's obviously going to leave either this summer or the following summer. Looking at FBref, his defensive stats are significantly better than Osimhen, who is the only realistic alternative. Any other striker simply isn't good enough to be our 1st choice striker. Those are the 2 world class options and I don't see anything to suggest Kane wouldn't be a great option for us. I reckon Spurs would sell for £70m. Definitely worth it at that price.
If Kane is to leave, it's because he wants to win trophies. I doubt after having Mourinho and Conte, he would jump to work with Poch's long term approach, especially Chelsea squad is at the first stage of rebuild after all these wholesale change. That's before the rivalry matter.
Challenging PL is out of the question next season. Looks like no European football for Chelsea too. Would Kane be happy to move there risking a trophyless first season when he' short on time? It's not that much difference to run down the last year at Spurs.
The Spurs posters there mentioning his lack of mobility and inability to press include ones praising him, defending him and hoping he'll stay. So no it isn't Spurs fans trying to convince themselves of anything, it's Spurs fans who watch him every week noting what they consider an obvious flaw.
Does City play «a high energy pressing game»? Are they modern? Does Haaland do «high energy pressing»? How about Xavi? Is he a «modern coach» playing «modern football»? Lewa, high energy pressing?
It is funny, because de Zerbi recently hailed Kane as a complete modern forward. It also seem, if rumours are anything to go by, that another very modern coach like him alot (that dutch dude).
Who would you suggest we go for then because Osimhen seems to press even less. Btw Haaland presses far less than either of them, in fact I doubt you'd find a single striker in the top 5 leagues that presses less than Haaland according to verified stats. That still hasn't hurt City.
I mean didn’t Pep want him last season? If Kane is „modern“ enough for Pep then why should he not be the same for ETH?
Guys on this thread need to wake up and smell the coffee. Us talking about Kane joining us is contingent on us actually getting sold. Under the current structure and FFP rules, there is no way in hell we get Kane.
No way we get anyone. If we're not sold we can't do anything and all the progress this season will be for nothing, which is why we're almost certainly going to be sold, so why are you making a big song and dance about nothing? Obviously everyone is assuming we're going to be sold, what would be the point in discussing any transfers otherwise?
Yeah I was going to mention that but I didn’t want to labour the point
With us being embroiled in our own mess and little chance a major trophy next season, leaving the rivalry aside, we’re not a club that can provide him what he thinks his career desperately needs.
It could mayybee had been worth it for him if we were a juggernaut like City who could gust him trophies every season, but even then I don’t think Kane would do it. But as it is we’re nowhere close to that.
he’d complete Arsenals team thinking about it
If you've actually watched both those players it should be immediately apparent that Osimhen offers more pressing intensity than Kane. I'm not even sure what you're looking at on fbref that would tell you otherwise as they don't carry pressing stats any more.
Though I know that when they did carry those pressing stats back in the 21/22 season, Osimhen was in the 84th percentile for pressures in the attacking third, because I referenced it in a post at the time. And this from his season in France before he moved to Napoli.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So no, Osimhen isn't worse at pressing than Kane, just as our eyes tell us he isn't.
And it's not just about pressing either, it's also about pace and mobility. Where Kane also lacks (and someone like Haaland for one very clearly doesn't).
Hope the links are nonsense.