Harry Kane

stepic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
6,963
Location
London
He would rather sell him for £149,999,999.99 to Real Madrid than sell him for £150,000,000.00 to us. And not a penny less.
ignoring how confused i am about this statement, most would prefer to sell overseas than to a rival, and would want a hell of a lot more than just a penny extra if they did.
 

Neil_Buchanan

Cock'd
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
2,696
Location
Bolton
Id expect it to be at least 3 if not 4 seasons before he can lead the line, and that’s gambling on him cracking on to that point, even though he does look very promising. Would you not want us to be good in the meantime? Personally I don’t think we’re good enough with Martial leading the line.

Kane could give us his best 4 years with Greenwood learning off him and then pass the torch over. It’s perfect really. If he continues his injuries we’d have Ighalo and Greenwood ready to play (would expect Martial to leave if this happened).
To be honest I agree with you. My post was tainted by the idea that we probably cannot afford him.
 

Aarron Swift

Full Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2019
Messages
155
Would love to have a striker with the quality and record of Kane however his injuries are raking up and the fee would be astronomical. £150m is likely the opening price for overseas sides. A premier League club comes in and that's £200m and talks over before it begins. Kane has a contract until 2024, even if he wants to leave I think there's almost no chance hes allowed to go this summer.

Of the clubs that could afford him:

Real Madrid - Long Term target Mbappe could be their number 1 this summer. Surely cant afford both
Barcelona - Had a tough job paying for Greizman
PSG - Doubt Kane would want to go to France
Man City - Premier League Club No go because Levy
Man Utd - Premier League Club No go because Levy

Could also find that with a £60m release clause and 19 years old Erling Haaland is above Kane in targets for a lot of teams. £60m for maybe 12 years vs £150m+ for maybe 4
 

Lee565

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
1,236
Surely if United were going to deal with levy again it would be for son rather than kane.

He would probably cost almost half of what they would be demanding for kane, wouldnt be as expensive in wages, not as injury prone as kane, delivers in big games and has more versatility and pace about him.
 

Varun1

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
117
Could he be a target for Chelsea? They need a top striker and the only ones that area available are Werner and maybe Kane.
 

Pass and Move

Full Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
515
I would never have thought this 18 months ago, but I really don't want us to sign Kane. At his peak, he's obviously one of the best strikers in the world, however the likely cost combined with his recent injury record means I think we could easily improve more as a team by investing elsewhere. Mbappe and Haaland are the only strikers in the world I'd want us to target if it meant missing out on Sancho and/or Midfield reinforcements.
 

AP88

Full Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
967
Location
Manchester
Supports
Man City
I see him - and Pochettino - at City. He’s likely the only man who could have kept him at Spurs for the past 3/4 years, and also the one who’d convince him to take a few years out of European competition; he’s not getting it at Spurs anyway.

I also have a feeling Haaland agreed with Solskjaer to join him after 18 months of development with Dortmund; it’s seems Sancho and Grealish will be the priotities this summer, with Martial supplemented by Ighalo, Greenwood and Rashford for another season.

There’s little value in the deal for United - Kane’s an upgrade on Martial, but it ultimately won’t improve the team to the same extent 2/3 signings in other positions would - especially given Haaland is apparently gonna only cost £65m.
 

Mark Pawelek

Full Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
1,607
Location
Kent, near London
prior to his injury this year he had played 187 Pl games out of 210 (about 90%) I doubt we have had many players manage that (and certainly none who have scored 133 goals in that time)
Would he cost a lot - yeah probably £150 - £200m Id guess but lets be honest top players simply cost a lot of money and if he went to Madrid and banged in 40 goals a season everybody would be saying its £150m well spent
Including his injury, he's started 81% of PL matches (over 6 seasons; counting from his break-through season 2014/15) and been involved in another 4.5% (as a sub). Scored 133 goals in the 177 matches he started plus 10, he's been subbed on; over those 6 seasons. He's never scored 40 league goals in a season so if he did it at Madrid I'd be shocked as he's more injury prone over the last 2 seasons.

Too expensive, even at £120m. Rather have Sancho, and/or Grealish. Most important criteria is do they want to play for us.
 

Inigo Montoya

Leave Wayne Rooney alone!!
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
25,110
Including his injury, he's started 81% of PL matches (over 6 seasons; counting from his break-through season 2014/15) and been involved in another 4.5% (as a sub). Scored 133 goals in the 177 matches he started plus 10, he's been subbed on; over those 6 seasons. He's never scored 40 league goals in a season so if he did it at Madrid I'd be shocked as he's more injury prone over the last 2 seasons.

Too expensive, even at £120m. Rather have Sancho, and/or Grealish. Most important criteria is do they want to play for us.
If Grealish doesn’t want to play for a club like Utd, he’s a complete big headed cock
 

Havak

Pokemon master
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
6,434
Location
Salford, Manchester
Probably worthy of its own thread if someone wants to make it, but assuming:

1) Pogba stays at United, so we don't have access to that extra £100m+ a lot of us might have expected.
2) We sell Sanchez, Smalling, Rojo, and Lingard/Andreas for somewhere in the region of £80m combined.
3) We are in the Champion's League next season and Ole is given £80-100m before sales.
4) We sign Bellingham for the rumoured price and probably loan him out.

As Man Utd, do you sign Harry Kane or Jadon Sancho for that £100-150m~? I'll be amazed if we can buy both so I do believe it's going to be one or the other.

I think most of us will say Sancho on a whim, but I honestly believe it's more of a debate than that. Kane's probably guaranteed 30 goals a season in all competitions at United as long as his injuries aren't significantly long ones every year. He's at an age where we can get 5-6 top years out of him still IMO (at 32-years-old I still fancy him to be a lethal striker netting 20+ league goals). However, due to the age of Sancho, the fact I think he would still actually be a bit cheaper and we've needed a right winger for close to a decade, I am still in the Sancho camp. Also, I would be open to signing Ighalo permanently if he keeps up his contribution or at least extending his loan for a full season next term. While Kane is undeniably an upgrade on all of our strikers and we could even probably sell Martial, not keep Ighalo and be stronger as a squad for doing so, I would feel confident in having enough goals in the side without having to exert ourselves to tie down a deal for Harry.

Rashford, Martial, Sancho, James, Ighalo, Greenwood, Fernandes, Pogba & Mata feels like enough to mount a title challenge really if we're playing 4-5 attacking players each game.
 

Brightonian

Full Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
12,551
Location
Juanderlust
Do not want. Ighalo has scored way more over the last few games.
Fishy fish. But also, genuinely do not want, not at Levy prices.
 

VP89

Pogba's biggest fan
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
13,983
I think he'd be too much money and has had a couple long term injuries which is just too much of a risk. I'd be happy keeping Ighalo and spending a feck ton on Sancho Grealish and another great defender.
 

davidmichael

Full Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2015
Messages
1,556
We’re starting to look like a proper team with Rashford to still come back, add Sancho to that and we look a serious team. Adding Kane as good as he is means changing how we play as he and Martial are very different strikers and Ighalo is happy to play a supporting role so why mess with that when it doesn’t need messing with.

I just don’t seen Levy agreeing to sell to us unless it’s £150+ million and not only do we have Martial and maybe Ighalo next season but also Greenwood which added to potentially Sancho, Rashford, Fernandes, James, Mata, Lingard and Gomes means Kane isn’t needed and our priority should 100% be Sancho instead.
 

lysglimt

Full Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
9,692
He is way too expensive to be considered signing. We will never get a player like him for under £100 million - and the fact is that he is 27 in the summer so realistically his value wil drop season by season at this stage. Nor am I convinced that he is exactly the type of striker OGS wants - no matter how good he is. Another concern is that he missed a lot of the last 2 seasons with injuries - and he has been nowhere near as prolific as he was the seasons before.

59 League goals in 67 games in 16/17 and 17/18 (0,88 goals pr game)
28 League goals in 48 games in 18/19 and 19/20 (0,58 goals pr game)

Even more concerning is the fact that his goals to game ratio has dropped dramatically 3 seasons in a row

16/17 (0,96 goals pr game), 17/18 (0,81 goals pr game), 18/19 (0,60 goals pr game), 19/20 (0,55 goals pr game)

Of course this is partially down to Spurs generally doing worse, but it's a concern that Harry Kane over the last 2 seasons has scored less pr game than Marcus Rashford did this season. So in my opinion, it's a no-brainer - Harry Kane for £100 million + simply isn't good value for Money.
 

Van Piorsing

Lost his light sabre
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
18,500
Location
Polska
In 3 years Greenwood can have very impressive stats so perhaps observing Haland's situation in Dortmund will be more safe option, if of course we have intention to get him... meanwhile Ighalo should be capable os scoring some more goals for one season while he's not declining just yet.

If Kane will put a transfer request himself then maybe, who knows.
 
Last edited:

Red Keane

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 20, 2019
Messages
80
The guy is way too injury prone
That's becuase he is forced* to return to the first team before he fully recovers from an injury, resulting in him getting injured again soon enough and so the cycle goes...

He would not have that problem at United considering that Martial would be more than able to cover for him if he does get injured again (so he would have no need to rush back into the first team), thus meaning that he would be less injury prone at United.

*In the sense they have little alternative to Kane within their squad, and no Son does not count considering how many times he plays alongside Kane.

Surely if United were going to deal with levy again it would be for son rather than kane.

He would probably cost almost half of what they would be demanding for kane, wouldnt be as expensive in wages, not as injury prone as kane, delivers in big games and has more versatility and pace about him.
Could also find that with a £60m release clause and 19 years old Erling Haaland is above Kane in targets for a lot of teams. £60m for maybe 12 years vs £150m+ for maybe 4
Considering that United (Under OGS) have played their best football when playing 3-5-2, it makes sense to stick with that formation. Thus if United are going to be playing with 2 up front on a regular basis, then they really need to have 4 Strikers on the books (Like Fergie did funny enough before he moved away from 442). So instead of getting either Kane or Son/Haaland, why not get both and have a Kane/Son or Kane/Haarland front 2 be our main option up front (With Rashford/Martial being another option if needed).

Could he be a target for Chelsea? They need a top striker and the only ones that area available are Werner and maybe Kane.
If Roman Abramovich's Right Hand Woman had the balls to buy Kane off Spurs back in 2015, they would have saved a lot of disspointing seasons in the following few years up to this point.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
17,410
Nobody will move to Italy for a good 2 or 3 years imo. That country will need time to recover and it ont appeal to the top players
 

Craig Ward

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2016
Messages
1,350
A Rashford-Kane-James front 3 would be stronger than Rashford-Martial-Sancho.
Erm, no it wouldnt.

Martial has come on this season, adding a lot more goals to his game. Martial frustrates me but the chances we'd create with Rashford and Sancho off him would be great

And Sancho has much more of an impact as a signing than Kane and is already twice the player Dan James is.
 

Cassidy

No longer at risk of being mistaken for a Scouser
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
19,175
Erm, no it wouldnt.

Martial has come on this season, adding a lot more goals to his game. Martial frustrates me but the chances we'd create with Rashford and Sancho off him would be great

And Sancho has much more of an impact as a signing than Kane and is already twice the player Dan James is.
10 times the player Dan James is you mean
 

Teja

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
413
Location
Boston, MA
Pretty eh about it, he's one of those players who's still relatively young (26) but put a lot of miles on his legs already.

I'd rather raid Dortmund for Sancho this window and Haaland the next depending on his progression and not blow our wage / transfer budget on Kane.
 

Varun1

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
117
That's becuase he is forced* to return to the first team before he fully recovers from an injury, resulting in him getting injured again soon enough and so the cycle goes...

He would not have that problem at United considering that Martial would be more than able to cover for him if he does get injured again (so he would have no need to rush back into the first team), thus meaning that he would be less injury prone at United.

*In the sense they have little alternative to Kane within their squad, and no Son does not count considering how many times he plays alongside Kane.





Considering that United (Under OGS) have played their best football when playing 3-5-2, it makes sense to stick with that formation. Thus if United are going to be playing with 2 up front on a regular basis, then they really need to have 4 Strikers on the books (Like Fergie did funny enough before he moved away from 442). So instead of getting either Kane or Son/Haaland, why not get both and have a Kane/Son or Kane/Haarland front 2 be our main option up front (With Rashford/Martial being another option if needed).



If Roman Abramovich's Right Hand Woman had the balls to buy Kane off Spurs back in 2015, they would have saved a lot of disspointing seasons in the following few years up to this point.
What's the story here? Can't remember Chelsea having an interest in Kane in the past ...
But yeah, imagine Kane at Chelsea instead of Bats, Giroud, morata, Rémy, Falcao & Pato!
 

Gordon S

Full Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
947
Is this even worth debating? Would Levy sell his talismanic star striker to a rival for any money?
 

Kostov

Full Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2017
Messages
5,318
Location
Skopje, Macedonia
Kane would be a perfect match for United but would leave our team very unbalanced. We would still lack a proper quality RW. If we could somehow make a front 3 of Rashford/Kane/Sancho, that would be glorious. With Martial in rotation :D
 

Harry190

Full Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
4,622
Location
Canada
It's too late now. That time has passed. Not that he isn't a great player, moreso that we have interesting alternatives now. MajiinnBuu will make the step up and join us in a couple of years.
 

arthurka

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
11,851
Location
Rectum
erm. He’s the best striker in the country, and Martial isn’t an out and out striker. Why wouldn’t we be interested?
Ok he isn´t hitting his old numbers and he is always injured plus he would cost 150m plus. We surely aren´t interested in that?
 

Yagami

Kira did nothing wrong
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
8,436
It's too late now. That time has passed. Not that he isn't a great player, moreso that we have interesting alternatives now. MajiinnBuu will make the step up and join us in a couple of years.
Who are you referring to here? :lol:
 

VeevaVee

despite the protests, wears Ugg boots
Scout
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
36,522
Location
Manchester
It's too late now. That time has passed. Not that he isn't a great player, moreso that we have interesting alternatives now. MajiinnBuu will make the step up and join us in a couple of years.
We should turn Kane down for who now?
 

Relfy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2014
Messages
477
If he stays in the Prem it is at Spurs or possibly City, and the only way City take him is by including a couple of their fringe players in the deal, say Stones and Mahrez. They're the only realistic alternative with the funds to pull it off, and the upcoming need for a new #9. There is no way they do a deal with Chelsea or Arsenal, he doesn't fit the dippers style of play, and we don't have that urgent need to blow the bank to bring him in. As others have said our squad and starting XI will be more complete with say Sancho and Grealish coming in.

Looking abroad, maybe Madrid as Benzema isn't getting any younger and Jovic hasn't done the business, but I think their eyes are on Mbappe. Possibly Bayern if they don't replace Lewa with Werner. Barca can't afford the deal and it looks like they will go big for Neymar. For all their recent spending I can't see the likes of Juve or Inter being able to afford such a deal.

Also leaving Levy aside, would Jose allow the transfer to go through? If he loses Kane from that squad he doesn't have much left to work with. They need their rebuild to focus around Kane. Trying to cash in on him and then spend that money is very risky. How do they replace him for that team?
 

RUCK4444

Full Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
1,054
Location
FIFA Headquarters
Love how people are writing Kane off as a crock and saying the time has passed.

He’s young and an incredible no 9.

If you you’ve taken the time to notice that we have improved with a natural no 9 in the starting 11 (Ighalo) imagine a peak Kane playing the same role.

His hold up play is sublime, scores all types of goals, links well, you name it... and we want to turn down any opportunity to sign him?
 

andersj

Nick Powell Expert
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
2,146
Location
Copenhagen
Love how people are writing Kane off as a crock and saying the time has passed.

He’s young and an incredible no 9.

If you you’ve taken the time to notice that we have improved with a natural no 9 in the starting 11 (Ighalo) imagine a peak Kane playing the same role.

His hold up play is sublime, scores all types of goals, links well, you name it... and we want to turn down any opportunity to sign him?
Peak-Kane would turn us into a team that would be able to get 90 points next season. Trouble is, he has not been at his peak for awhile. And while he is not a crook, his injury record should be a big concern.

I would probably feel more safe with Jimenez at £50-70 mill than Kane at £100-150 mill. You could probably get Jimenez and Zakaria (or Upamecano) for the same fee and wage as Kane alone.