He'd be worth it too.English tax & Levy. If he puts Walker at £45m then Kane will be £150m.
He'd be worth it too.English tax & Levy. If he puts Walker at £45m then Kane will be £150m.
A lot of it comes down to the player. People talk about him being Spurs through and through, but given the chance to move to the biggest club in the country, one of the biggest in the world, and more than double your salary....I think he'd jump at it. Because it's not just direct football earnings that would more than double, his marketability would see a stratospheric increase through the global reach of the United brand. Being the figurehead of Spurs is positively provincial by comparison.Everyone has a price yeah? How much would it even take for Levy to seriously consider negotiating the sale of Kane to us? He is literally the face of Spurs and priceless to them, can't see him go anywhere unfortunately.
Define "financial strength". In 2 years from now Spurs will probably have a larger income than Juventus and be in the global top 10.Footballers do have an expiry date in terms of both talent and worth, when you consider the length of time it will take Spurs to reach a point of financial strength - one such as to be able to pay their players a wage befitting their ability - that expiry date would have come and gone. United are ready to double Kane's salary at this very moment.
Obviously the term in itself is quite vague, though profitability and liquidity would be most suitable to the current debate.Define "financial strength". In 2 years from now Spurs will probably have a larger income than Juventus and be in the global top 10.
Kane is not making any demands. He's seen his income sky-rocket over the last couple of years, has recently signed a new contract and by all accounts is very happy at Spurs. No doubt his income at Spurs will continue to increase over the next couple of years, as will Spurs ability to pay that income.Obviously the term in itself is quite vague, though profitability and liquidity would be most suitable to the current debate.
Profitability measures a company's ability to generate profit. Spurs, at this point in time, are far inferior to United in this regard.
Liquidity, cash on the hip so to speak, would define a football clubs capability in terms of meeting a players salary demands. There or thereabouts.
Needless to say 2 years is a lifetime in football. As i said in a previous post, United can and will meet Kane's demands as of this very moment.
United: Profit (June 2016) before tax £49m (follows £4m loss in 2015): total profit over those 2 years = £45m... Profitability measures a company's ability to generate profit. Spurs, at this point in time, are far inferior to United in this regard ....
Exactly; he's averaged better than a goal a game in 2017. 23 years old, easily broken the 20 goal barrier for 3 seasons now.He'd be worth it too.
That's a really weak argument. I don't believe there is anyone in here who doesn't give Kane the credit he deserves. But for all his achievements, he simply lacks the talent of a £100m plus player. Let's be honest here, he isn't a Suarez, Bale, Neymar, Messi nor CR7 level of talent. He is in the class of the Lewandowskis of this world and even they wouldn't be worth 100mExactly; he's averaged better than a goal a game in 2017. 23 years old, easily broken the 20 goal barrier for 3 seasons now.
Once again, he isn't getting the credit he would if he was Portuguese, Spanish or Brazilian, because his name is Harry and not Henrique.....
He just scored 29 goals in the premier league after being out for months with injury. That's after scoring over 20 the two seasons previous. He's 23. In today's market, whether you like it or not, that makes him worth 100m.That's a really weak argument. I don't believe there is anyone in here who doesn't give Kane the credit he deserves. But for all his achievements, he simply lacks the talent of a £100m plus player. Let's be honest here, he isn't a Suarez, Bale, Neymar, Messi nor CR7 level of talent. He is in the class of the Lewandowskis of this world and even they wouldn't be worth 100m
Where dis you get those figures from? Post the source.United: Profit (June 2016) before tax £49m (follows £4m loss in 2015): total profit over those 2 years = £45m
Spurs: Profit (June 2016) before tax £38m (up from £12m in 2015): total profit over those 2 years = £50m
There may be more recent figures for June 2017, if so I don't have them.
Do you think if Spurs continue to challenge for top 4 but don't win a title in the next 3 seasons, he'll be happy to stay?Kane is not making any demands. He's seen his income sky-rocket over the last couple of years, has recently signed a new contract and by all accounts is very happy at Spurs. No doubt his income at Spurs will continue to increase over the next couple of years, as will Spurs ability to pay that income.
The idea that United are unsettling him with massive wage offers is just wishful thinking.
No chance, he'd of resigned Ronnie for the money being talked aboutI think if SAF were still in charge he would have signed Kane for a club record price 2 years ago.
Fixed for you.Would be daft to bid at least 150m for Kane.
Given our wealth, need for goals, ability to utterly smash Spuds wage structure and the fact that he's English and would likely stay for 10 years, there's just no reason not to at least let him know that he's wanted here.
Ronaldo - Kane - MessiPretty sure that Jon Richardson who did the story is the same guy who linked us to Messi a year ago, to much amusement
I meant wage demands.Kane is not making any demands. He's seen his income sky-rocket over the last couple of years, has recently signed a new contract and by all accounts is very happy at Spurs. No doubt his income at Spurs will continue to increase over the next couple of years, as will Spurs ability to pay that income.
The idea that United are unsettling him with massive wage offers is just wishful thinking.
See Forbes website for my retort: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoz...ds-most-profitable-soccer-teams/#797fde86a2f4United: Profit (June 2016) before tax £49m (follows £4m loss in 2015): total profit over those 2 years = £45m
Spurs: Profit (June 2016) before tax £38m (up from £12m in 2015): total profit over those 2 years = £50m
There may be more recent figures for June 2017, if so I don't have them.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/01/premier-league-finances-club-by-club ... posted by them on June 1st of this year.Where dis you get those figures from? Post the source.
Probably not. But then if he wants to leave he'll be sold abroad.Do you think if Spurs continue to challenge for top 4 but don't win a title in the next 3 seasons, he'll be happy to stay?
No it does not. It should make him about the price of Higuain. And if he is to be more expensive he shouldn't pass 85m. Him going for 100m is as laughable as the price being quoted for Lukaku.He just scored 29 goals in the premier league after being out for months with injury. That's after scoring over 20 the two seasons previous. He's 23. In today's market, whether you like it or not, that makes him worth 100m.
Higuain is 29, may have been 28 when he went for that price. Kane has 5 years extra playing time. You're having a joke if you think they were worth the same. Add on inflation with another year of premier league money and the fact Spurs have no need to sell.No it does not. It should make him about the price of Higuain. And if he is to be more expensive he shouldn't pass 85m. Him going for 100 m is as laughble as the price being quoted for Lukaku
No chance with Kane. When he leaves you he'll go to another English team.Probably not. But then if he wants to leave he'll be sold abroad.
You are assuming he'd ever want to go abroad. That isn't a givenProbably not. But then if he wants to leave he'll be sold abroad.
The figures I've quoted come from Companies House. They are not "highly selective" - they are the official, audited accounts.See Forbes website for my retort: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoz...ds-most-profitable-soccer-teams/#797fde86a2f4
We can all scour the internet to find some highly selective reading material in order to empower an argument. Kind of pointless if you ask me, we both know that a debate on financial strength involving Spurs and United is a one-sided arguement.
That will the only option on offer to him if he ever wants to leave.You are assuming he'd ever want to go abroad. That isn't a given
Kudos for noticingThe figures I've quoted come from Companies House. They are not "highly selective" - they are the official, audited accounts.
The figures you've quoted are for one year only, use pound-to-dollar exchange rates and appear to be not simply profit before tax.
I don't understand why people can't grasp the concept that the very concept of a 'valuation' is completely dependent on what the selling club wants it to be.No it does not. It should make him about the price of Higuain. And if he is to be more expensive he shouldn't pass 85m. Him going for 100m is as laughable as the price being quoted for Lukaku.
In your mind, Harry Kane may feel very differently.That will the only option on offer to him if he ever wants to leave.