This too.I share some of the concerns expressed by people in this thread but what tops it off for me is the absolute circus which would surround him if he were to come to manchester united. The English press are obsessed with him.
Not chosen as club captain? "Kane snubbed by United".
Left on the bench? "Kane regrets his move away from his childhood club" etc etc
I can't be bothered with any more circus-type players.
Is he on the market? a player on the market with 1 year left at 30 years age on the market does not go for 100m. The reason of that price is because he is not on the market.He's the best striker on the market, and a proven (and at some point) record PL goal scorer. He's miles better than what we have and will score, and create, goals. Any decent manager will get a tune out of him. It seems that ten Hag want's him - if the press are to be believed so unless you think the club would force a player on him, if United do make a move ten Hag himself evidently disagrees that he doesn't fit the system the manager wants to play.
He can arguably be criticised to some degree in finals, but he's dragged Spurs to half of those finals and to the CL numerous times. How many players could do that?
And people keep dodging the actual question - who is objectively the better option? Any player coming to the PL comes from an inferior league and presents a bigger risk than Kane who will, no doubt, score goals.
He's not really on the market though, unless you want to pay a ridiculous premium.He's the best striker on the market, and a proven (and at some point) record PL goal scorer. He's miles better than what we have and will score, and create, goals. Any decent manager will get a tune out of him. It seems that ten Hag want's him - if the press are to be believed so unless you think the club would force a player on him, if United do make a move ten Hag himself evidently disagrees that he doesn't fit the system the manager wants to play.
He can arguably be criticised to some degree in finals, but he's dragged Spurs to half of those finals and to the CL numerous times. How many players could do that?
And people keep dodging the actual question - who is objectively the better option? Any player coming to the PL comes from an inferior league and presents a bigger risk than Kane who will, no doubt, score goals.
Well, it's not just a price issue. It's a combination of price and having to spend the money again in three or four years.So people that don't want him because of the price would prefer we spend 130m on Osimhen instead?
I also don't believe the club will be interested in Kane if he's going to cost more than 80m
It’s very hard to see how he can fail though. He’s the perfect CF for our set up.This too.
In fact, I think they will go further by blaming any sort of failure on his part on us. And I do not see his spectacular success being a sure thing by any means. It will be a constant case of how we have failed Harry and how much he deserves better, especially since ‘he’s scored goals all his life’ so if he doesn’t here, it’s because our players or our manager are shit.
I'd take that Kane deal. Its not like we can't get another striker when he starts to decline. I just see him as much more of a guarantee than Osimhen and suits us more. He's also Eth's number one choice.Well, it's not just a price issue. It's a combination of price and having to spend the money again in three or four years.
There's no chance that Levy will let him go to a PL rival for less than £80m, so a rough estimate of the cost over an eight year period would be as follows.
Going for Osimhen = £130m plus £250k/w wages (200k/w first four years, 300k/w last four years) = £130m + 12.5m*8 = £230m
Going for Kane = £80m plus £300k/w wages = 80+15+15+15+15 = £140m. Plus we'd probably have to sign a replacement for him in four years, let's say that's another £60m (most likely more) plus £200k/w wages taking us up to another 60+10+10+10+10 = 100m. The striker's position would therefore cost us slightly more over an eight year period, not to mention that Kane's replacement might flop and might be more expensive than £60m if we're going for an established top striker.
If EtH rates Kane and Osimhen similarly, it makes more sense economically and squad-building wise to have the same striker over an eight year period than having multiple strikers who may need the team around them to do different things.
Well naturally it would be hard for you to see him failing if you’ve described him as the ‘perfect striker for our set up’.It’s very hard to see how he can fail though. He’s the perfect CF for our set up.
If he arrives and starts missing the target repeatedly then I doubt anyone will be blaming the rest of the team. If he arrives and we play McT/Fred for some reason and never get the ball to him, then that will be on the manager/rest of the team.
Yes, quite frankly. If we could leverage some kind of deal with add ons, installments etc I'd rather pay 130 million for Osimhen than 80-100 on an aging Harry Kane. There's not a huge difference when it comes down to it because Harry may cost even more in terms of wages. He's one of the biggest names in football, Osimhen only reaches that level when he's a success at his next club.So people that don't want him because of the price would prefer we spend 130m on Osimhen instead?
I also don't believe the club will be interested in Kane if he's going to cost more than 80m
I appreciate him wanting to get a deal done quickly but if he's interested in either Kane or Osimhen that seems quite unlikely.https://www.skysports.com/football/...t-this-summer-amid-manchester-united-interest
Harry Kane: Tottenham striker would need to drive exit this summer amid Manchester United interest
Harry Kane will enter final year of Spurs contract at end of season and talks over extending at the club are currently on ice; Man Utd boss Erik ten Hag wants a forward recruited as early as possible and his ideal scenario is to have new signings in place for the bulk of pre-season
I think you will be quite disappointed to find Kane trying to compete with Bruno further back than consistently trying to get on the end of crosses.I was against this and for Osimhen but seeing how we've been playing, flashing balls across the box/6 yard line, Bruno's ability in the DLP and crosses in general, plus he's played with Eriksen before and PL proven I think he'd fit perfectly for us.
We need someone that'll make the runs to the near post and be able to score from crosses and corners, something Kane excells at.
If we can get that privk Levy to sell for 80m then I wouldn't be against it.
If you said "what we really need is someone who is able to drop deep and create for others while also scoring goals", then I'd understand switching to Kane. But what you describe is what a box predator like Osimhen brings.I was against this and for Osimhen but seeing how we've been playing, flashing balls across the box/6 yard line, Bruno's ability in the DLP and crosses in general, plus he's played with Eriksen before and PL proven I think he'd fit perfectly for us.
We need someone that'll make the runs to the near post and be able to score from crosses and corners, something Kane excells at.
If we can get that privk Levy to sell for 80m then I wouldn't be against it.
I like this plan. Not sure how realistic it is however. Not sure we will spend that kind of money this summer.Kane and the Danish kid in Italy for the same price as Osimhen. Kid ready to take over from Kane in three years.
Yes, we would have done better and I'm with you on this being a no-brainer, but how much better would have done with Kane than we have with Weggy is possibly hard to say. I'm pretty sure Kane would have put away a few of the missed chances against Sevilla in the first leg and with that, we'd be through. But I'm not sure that being through in this marathon competition called the Europa League would have been great news for us as the squad is clearly tiring and Sevilla actually did us a favor by knocking us out.If we'd have had Kane instead of Weghorst this season.. would we have done better?
Its an absolute no brainer.
this is just a ridiculously bad take here. Of course having kane vs an absolute scrub of a player like Wout would be better. But no brainer? What about if Levy pulls a Levy and demands 100 plus for kane? What if he is a complete ass and says nothing short of 150 for kane? Still a no brainer? What about if EtH wants more pace from his long term CF than from kane? Or demands more pressing from the front. Kane likes to drop deep and i dont see him doing much defensive work whenever i catch Spurs games. There is easily an argument to be had for finding a 50 million or so CF that is a little less known but has all the attributes EtH would want in a CF and being able to bring in more targets than splurging most of the budget on a KaneIf we'd have had Kane instead of Weghorst this season.. would we have done better?
Its an absolute no brainer.
Don't think we have a choice not too.I like this plan. Not sure how realistic it is however. Not sure we will spend that kind of money this summer.
Maguire + 40-50m is not a bad deal IMOIt could be slightly easier to do a deal for Kane if Spurs are interested in some of the players we're looking to move on. They need a GK so Henderson is an option for them, Maguire would be a decent signing if they continue with a back 3, maybe Martial too if they forget to do the medical.
agree this will be a decisive factor - gets to stay at home, play for his pal. Chelsea will offer them Sterling and Lukaku.If as expected Pochettino goes to Chelsea, surely Kane would be tempted to join him either next or the following season (on a free).
Surely Levy is even less likely to sell to another London club than he is to us?? No way he strengthens his neighbours, is there?If as expected Pochettino goes to Chelsea, surely Kane would be tempted to join him either next or the following season (on a free).
Hold on. You think that having Kane rather than Weghorst would have us a maximum of 6 points better off?? I personally think he’d add at least 12 points from where we are currently.Yes, we would have done better and I'm with you on this being a no-brainer, but how much better would have done with Kane than we have with Weggy is possibly hard to say. I'm pretty sure Kane would have put away a few of the missed chances against Sevilla in the first leg and with that, we'd be through. But I'm not sure that being through in this marathon competition called the Europa League would have been great news for us as the squad is clearly tiring and Sevilla actually did us a favor by knocking us out.
Ok, so how about the PL? I doubt we'd be in the hunt for the PL trophy but we'd probably be 3-6 points clear of Newcastle. So there's that.
Having a fit and hungry Kane for the FA Cup final would have made it an interesting match, but as it stands right now the experts are convinced that City will destroy us.
I’m not sure, think Levy hates both Utd and Chelsea equally, but they’re both the most likely to bid the highest.Surely Levy is even less likely to sell to another London club than he is to us?? No way he strengthens his neighbours, is there?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that Kane and Weghorst are roughly equally proficient goal scorers. Such an insinuation would be madness of the highest order.Hold on. You think that having Kane rather than Weghorst would have us a maximum of 6 points better off?? I personally think he’d add at least 12 points from where we are currently.
Note Kane’s goals have added 22 points for Spurs this year. Weghorst and Martial’s goals for us have added 0 points.
How about if Osimhen cost 150m, would you agree?Yes, quite frankly. If we could leverage some kind of deal with add ons, installments etc I'd rather pay 130 million for Osimhen than 80-100 on an aging Harry Kane. There's not a huge difference when it comes down to it because Harry may cost even more in terms of wages. He's one of the biggest names in football, Osimhen only reaches that level when he's a success at his next club.
It would leave us in a pickle because I think that would already be an overspend against our budget, which is probably not likely to be big. I think we'd have to make a number of good sales to try and get one or two more through the door.
I don't think you realize how much power a player has with 1 year left on his contract. City might fancy him if he cost free next year. ANd he'll be guaranteed scoring tons of goals there. He has great options. Why would he settle for any that he doesn't fancy off?Surely Levy is even less likely to sell to another London club than he is to us?? No way he strengthens his neighbours, is there?
What you said is like describing Kane as Weghorst with goal. You completely disregard the possibility of different outcome of result from having better performance.Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that Kane and Weghorst are roughly equally proficient goal scorers. Such an insinuation would be madness of the highest order.
I was responding to the hypothetical question that if we had brought in Kane during the January window whether our record of wins and losses would be all that much different than it is. I'm going off memory only but I don't believe that since January 1 we've lost many games narrowly where a single goal by Kane would have scraped an equalizer or the match winner. There was the 2-2 draw with Leeds and the 1-1 draw with Palace and of course Arsenal beats us 3-2. But let's say that Kane would have scored in each of those games...would we really be in first or second place as a result? I don't think so.
We definitely would have won the games we did win by more comfortable margins and there's of course real value in that, but winning by 4-0 rather than 2-0 yields the same three points.
But let's go back to the matches in the PL since January where we dropped points. Even assuming Kane scored in every one of those games, which is not unreasonable, I'm not seeing enough points clawed back from those matches to have put us at the top of the league by now. That's the point I was trying to make. There's obviously no comparison between the undisputed world class of Harry Kane and the limited positive contributions that Martial and Weghorst have given us since January.
Agree with this. Last thing we need is a summer of Kane and Spurs messing us about.https://www.skysports.com/football/...t-this-summer-amid-manchester-united-interest
Harry Kane: Tottenham striker would need to drive exit this summer amid Manchester United interest
Harry Kane will enter final year of Spurs contract at end of season and talks over extending at the club are currently on ice; Man Utd boss Erik ten Hag wants a forward recruited as early as possible and his ideal scenario is to have new signings in place for the bulk of pre-season
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
We need him to be the anti-Frenkie this summer.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The only way it can happen is if Kane tells Levy let me go in July or I just leave for free in 2024.
I don’t think people are paying attention to Levy’s character.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The only way it can happen is if Kane tells Levy let me go in July or I just leave for free in 2024.
He will make an example of Kane by looking like an utter fool when Kane leaves for free next summer? His ego won’t be able to take that.I don’t think people are paying attention to Levy’s character.
Calling him out will make him even more obstinate. When backed into a corner, he lashes out and further to that, his ego > club or player.
He’ll make an example of Kane before he’ll fold to criticism and mockery.
Though I believe this to be true I also think he's backed into a corner hes never been in before. A club legend, historic goalscorer falling out with the CEO again, the risk of losing him for free to a London rival and of course 70-80m transfer fee would probably make him accept that the best move is to sell now.I don’t think people are paying attention to Levy’s character.
Calling him out will make him even more obstinate. When backed into a corner, he lashes out and further to that, his ego > club or player.
He’ll make an example of Kane before he’ll fold to criticism and mockery.
