City's biggest transfer fee is what, £65m? Chelsea's is £71m.
Harry Kane | "I will be staying at Tottenham this summer and will be 100% focused on helping the team achieve success."
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
I posted above i dont think we'd get him. But I do think Levy would take our money, as he would anyones. Hes a businessman
Point taken, I thought Chelsea's was higher. I still think they'd be more likely, one things for certain, the money involved will be ridiculous.
I don't give a shit about being proven right or wrong.
I didn't say my opinion on Cavani's extension is what club is actually thinking. It's just that my interpretation of the situation that I don't doubt we wouldn't have extended Cavani that early if we know Kane was going to leave. I don't know if it's right or not, but that's what I believe. Meanwhile you seem to think that you know everything about the club's policy of transfers and what we target and what we don't.
No there was actually a possibility of him staying for at least one more year considering that a new manager is coming.
But you seem to be really believing your theory that our manager won't want to sign one of the world's best strikers because he only wants to sign players less than 26 years old and Kane is 28 so Ok mate, as long as it makes you feel good.
I swear to god theres a tweet on twitter from a Spurs fan suggesting they loan Kane to City for a year so he can win something, then recall him and have him refocus on Spurs. Its a serious suggestion too. fecking mental
Have a cup of tea and calm down.
Have some paracetamol and talk to a doctor.
Well I could counter that saying he won't score 45 goals next season isn't fact. Not with spurs maybe but I think a purple patch is in him playing in a better team. It is easy to forget how good Ruud was because Henry is remembered so fondly at the expense of Ruuds legacy somewhat but at the time peak Ruud V Henry was a close call. As far as Kane is concerned I would love to see his peak with a better team and I think this is summer is his best chance to make that happen
Miki / Sanchez say heyAlways baffles me how people think we can just throw unwanted players on clubs
How often do you see a swap deal? It's very rare.
For this to happen, Martial/Lingard would have to want to join Spurs, Spurs would have to want Martial/Lingard, and they'd have to come to an agreement on wages.
We don't need Spurs to take Lingard/Martial. We can sell them to raise funds, and the result is the same for us. Finding a buyer may be difficult for certain players, but it's more realistic than swapping our deadwood for whatever player we fancy and thinking everyone involved will just automatically agree to it.
more like their Le Tissier
Ive also read they want him to become their Totti
Mikhi wanted to leave though.
We definitely can't force players to move regardless of what they want.
He is going to end up at city.
There are complete mentalists at every club to be fair.
100%
Much ado about nothing. In another covid window noone is going to pony up the sort of money Levy would want.
Kane is expensive anyway and Levy always expects a premium over market value.
Kane is expensive anyway and Levy always expects a premium over market value.
City will have to start spending that kind of money at some point and they definitely will.
Usually I’d agree but during a pandemic with no CL football next season they might have no choice, I’m not sure Spurs are in a position to turn down a 140m plus offer.
he's not signing for Chelsea
At this point you will think that Levy learned from Eriksen debacle when he let him leave for pennies because he didn't sell earlier.
It'll be best for Levy to sell for high sum now than wait for Kane to run his contract 3 years later then leave for 20-30m when he could get 100m at least for him now.
They’ve been pretending they are serious about FFP whilst massively outspending everyone, now their FFP charade is over, they were defo willing to spend big on Messi, and now they will spend big on Kane.
I’m expecting that a CL win gives them the balls to get Messi and Kane this Summer.
Maybe then people will finally come to terms with the fact that you cannot compete long-term against a bottomless pit of money, city are now moving into a massive period of domination.
If we were to splash 100-130m on a 21-year-old attacker people would go that it's worth it for 10 years of his service while in reality, you'd only get his pre-prime 4-5 years and he'd start angling for a move once he starts hitting his peak.
With Kane, we'd be getting a striker on his peak with at least 5 years left in the tank who'd hit the ground running without the usual fuss we have to deal with when we have a young/younger player.
With Kane, we'd be getting a striker on his peak with at least 5 years left in the tank who'd hit the ground running without the usual fuss we have to deal with when we have a young/younger player.
A lot of you seem to think Kane is a match made in heaven for City/Pep. I think he'd do well there, but it's far from a certainty as he takes way, way, way too many shots and speculative actions for Pep's liking, so something would have to give. Either he's given the freedom to continue being what he is, or, he conforms to Pep's wishes and dials his shooting right down.
Kane has shown he's a comfortable provider of chances for others and has no real issue slotting into a team, but a huge part of his game is based around off the cuff moments that catch keepers out, and with that, many a wasted play. Pep's neurotic about that kind of thing.
Kane at United steps on a few toes, too: Rashford, Cavani, Greenwood and Fernandes in one way or another. The set-up at Spurs has accomodated, well, practically formulated the player Kane is, and for him to crossover to another side with his exact same game, conscessions will have to be made either by himself, or others.
There's more to signing a player for that kind of money than goals. You have to ask whether he looks like a superfluous fit to what's already going on, or whether the team should then be built around him. You also have to question how many noses are put out of joint and whether that's worth the trade off.
Haaland's a very basic player compared to Kane; all he wants are clear running and striking lanes and isn't bothered about much else. But when you've got a 9.5, so much more has to go through him to optimise his game. It's been so long now since Kane played as an outright 9, you have to question if he'd gladly hand over the build-up to others and just wait for them to provide chances. Eclectic forwards don't tend to enjoy 'doing nothing' for large parts of a game (see Rooney's comments about being a really productive no 9.), Kane's not exactly cut from the same cloth, but he is totally used to doing anything he wants on a pitch with next to no restriction, as at Spurs, everything orbits around his actions, and not the other way around.
For the money he'll cost, I can only see City being viable. Not that we can't afford it, rather, the risk in his ankles and injury record as well as age makes it a lot less appealing - he breaks down here, we're in big trouble with an asset we can't shift, he does the same at City, and it's just an annoyance to them.
I wouldn't turn my nose up at the transfer, but I'd certainly be looking at other options before going in that direction. The outlay for Kane is not far off what it could end up being for Haaland and Sancho combined, plus he's carrying an injury record the two of them together don't get near. Then there's the other positions we need to buy well in. It's certainly not the gimme some are putting forward when all factors are objectively considered.
Only City can absorb the outlay and write it off, which is where we differ greatly. For us, it'd be about the biggest signing we'll make this decade, risk inclusive. It's not a no-brainer or formality that Kane available = instant purchase. He's 3 years off that being the case.
Kane has shown he's a comfortable provider of chances for others and has no real issue slotting into a team, but a huge part of his game is based around off the cuff moments that catch keepers out, and with that, many a wasted play. Pep's neurotic about that kind of thing.
Kane at United steps on a few toes, too: Rashford, Cavani, Greenwood and Fernandes in one way or another. The set-up at Spurs has accomodated, well, practically formulated the player Kane is, and for him to crossover to another side with his exact same game, conscessions will have to be made either by himself, or others.
There's more to signing a player for that kind of money than goals. You have to ask whether he looks like a superfluous fit to what's already going on, or whether the team should then be built around him. You also have to question how many noses are put out of joint and whether that's worth the trade off.
Haaland's a very basic player compared to Kane; all he wants are clear running and striking lanes and isn't bothered about much else. But when you've got a 9.5, so much more has to go through him to optimise his game. It's been so long now since Kane played as an outright 9, you have to question if he'd gladly hand over the build-up to others and just wait for them to provide chances. Eclectic forwards don't tend to enjoy 'doing nothing' for large parts of a game (see Rooney's comments about being a really productive no 9.), Kane's not exactly cut from the same cloth, but he is totally used to doing anything he wants on a pitch with next to no restriction, as at Spurs, everything orbits around his actions, and not the other way around.
For the money he'll cost, I can only see City being viable. Not that we can't afford it, rather, the risk in his ankles and injury record as well as age makes it a lot less appealing - he breaks down here, we're in big trouble with an asset we can't shift, he does the same at City, and it's just an annoyance to them.
I wouldn't turn my nose up at the transfer, but I'd certainly be looking at other options before going in that direction. The outlay for Kane is not far off what it could end up being for Haaland and Sancho combined, plus he's carrying an injury record the two of them together don't get near. Then there's the other positions we need to buy well in. It's certainly not the gimme some are putting forward when all factors are objectively considered.
Only City can absorb the outlay and write it off, which is where we differ greatly. For us, it'd be about the biggest signing we'll make this decade, risk inclusive. It's not a no-brainer or formality that Kane available = instant purchase. He's 3 years off that being the case.
He’s 28 in July. Also has dodgy ankles. Levy will price him out of the market with only City with the money to buy him for a published fee of £70m and another £50m in some Swiss bank as they offered Napoli for Cavani before he joined PSG. He won have any sell on value either.
Brilliant.
Nothing to suggest that at all.
There is a possibility Haaland wont fire at all if he doesn't get proper service from the midfield. Kane can single handedly take on an attack and carve chances. I just personally think Kane is very underrated at how good he is. He has potential to be a RVP type transfer for us.
It’s cute that Levy sees City, United and Chelsea as rivals. That Super League business really went to his bald head.
A Spurs pal is insistent that Levy won't sell to us again.It’s cute that Levy sees City, United and Chelsea as rivals. That Super League business really went to his bald head.
I think some of them think we're rivals for some reason.
You can see it a bit with Arsenal, as 15 years ago we were. But Spurs?
Last I heard he was in India?
I’ve heard he’s joined the Harry Krishnas.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Clearly we're having a nibble at Kane then.
Promising.
Kane is not going to risk his legacy on a OGS project.
What’s most you’d pay for Kane? Anything more than £85m would feel heavy.
If the alternative is City getting him and walking the league for the next 3 years.. whatever it takes