Kane is 29. Signing 29 year olds for big money and questionable injury records is a bad idea.
Harry Kane | Bayern Munich player
- Thread starter LawCharltonBest
- Start date
Just get in a CF who will suit the new mangers style of play even if he isn't top class. We can upgrade in 2 years hopefully when we're closer to mounting a challenge.
Agree, I would love us to sign a young Suarez kind of striker. Someone who chases every ball but actually has the quality to score a lot of goals.
He is not 29
He will be if we sign him. So he’s 29.
Turns 29 in the summer is the point. Over the previous 4 seasons he's shown plenty of evidence of the constant injuries having an impact on his game and not being on the same level as in 2017/18 and before that. Plus natural physical decline/increase of injuries that comes with age.
Its why Hazard and Griezmann were always dumb signings. Its why extending Pogba would be dumb. When a player starts showing signs of physical decline and is nearing 30 and has a questionable injury record.... Its just dumb to spend big money on them. It only makes sense when it's on a Van Persie to United type deal in 2012. Not crazy money and the missing piece for a title. We are more than Harry Kane away from trophies, and there is nothing reasonable about the fee.
No thanks, not building for the future and tends to get a lengthy injury most seasons. Similar to Rooney he just doesn't look to be built for longevity.
Levy told him he could leave if a club matched their valuation - nobody matched the valuation so he didn't move. That's basically all there is to it. If City had paid up then he would be playing for them. Letting a player go to a rival for less than you think he is worth is 'small time behaviour' if you ask me but we didn't do that.
But he’s not struggling as a 29 year old so his age is of no concern to his form.
If it’s not that important then why not just say 28?
I’m waiting for the near 30 posts to start up anytime soon
Harry Kane hasn't played like a player worth 100m in most of the past few seasons barring last season. Literally every player of all time hits a physical decline as they near 30 or cross 30. The only ones who continue to play at a top level well into their 30's are the ones with a pristine injury record generally. Loads of examples of big money flops in recent years for players around Kane's age. It screams red flags. He might be a top player for another couple of seasons, sure, but i wouldn't say he's got too long past that (especially as before last season people thought he had already declined).
And like i said, pretty importantly... Harry Kane alone is not going to rebuild us to winning a title. Why spend 100m on a forward who only has a couple of top years left in him when you won't even challenge for the title in those 2 years? Those signings only make sense if the player is the missing piece and you don't mind the hit financially because it gives you tangible rewards. This is 100m for a stop gap striker to help us fight for 4th better and by the time we are ready to compete, he needs replacing. Its illogical.
That's all well and good as long as the valuation is realistic for a 28 (soon to be 29) year old striker in a post-Covid economic climate. If the valuation isn't realistic, then you're just bullshitting the player and your deal is made in bad faith. It's like saying "Ok, I promise to sell this house worth £500,000 as long as a reasonable offer comes in....like £800,000."
Nobody was ever going to offer £150m last summer or whatever Levy was reported to want, just as nobody is going to offer £120m this summer. I'm pretty sure that the only player past his 29th birthday who has ever been sold for > £50m is Ronaldo to Juventus, and his price was highly tied to unique commercial possibilities.
Last edited:
Why do Man Utd need another injury prone player and pay astronomical fees for him? Don't they have injured players?
A signing that doesn’t make sense now. I thought we want young striker. Even if we want Kane, we only have 50m budget. 100% would rather have Ronaldo. We need more creative players right now. We are still lacking the creativity to create chances.
End of the day he’s not the age profile we need. It’s that simple whether his 28/29/30. It’s not just his age it’s a number of other things on top.
If he was a free transfer I’m sure most of the moaning would go away.
It would be the dumbest decision going after Kane now.
He's miles better than Nunez but the age is a concern for the investment.
We have spent the last 8 years buying past the prime ST. Falcao, Ibra, Cavani, Ronaldo or trying youth in Rashford and Martial. Give me a ST in their prime thank you.
Also is Kane the same age and injury record as our last ST we signing in their prime RVP ?
Also is Kane the same age and injury record as our last ST we signing in their prime RVP ?
I think the cons outweight the pros. Too risky. Kane is a very good player, but the timing is just not right.
There’s no reason for him to leave Spurs for us at his age. Not even money. City last summer made sense but he’d be leaving a club fighting for top four to spend the rest of his career fighting for top four.
Why do people repeat the myth that he's injury prone? Since he broke through for Spurs he's played 34,38,30,37,28,29,35 games in the league out of 38. He's missed one league game this season too.
Rather have him than Declan Rice anyway..
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want us to sign Kane but he’s a 28 year old having a rough season. He can, and likely will, turn it around since I don’t think he actually wants to be there anymore.
Same way Pogba will probably come good for his next club imo.
What was a fair valuation of Kane last summer in the context of Grealish going for £100m? Considering the lack of top class strikers in the European market? £150m seems pretty reasonable to me. Not Spurs fault if nobody wants to pay that but I think it was certainly the right ball park in terms of valuation. Remember we didn't want to sell him at all and we still don't - we only will if somebody is prepared to stump up what we value him at. I don't see what the problem is with this.
We should be lauded as handling it brilliantly in my opinion - we didn't bow to pressure from everybody to sell our prize asset for less than we wanted to - Kane after a few months of sulking is now very much back to his best and is going to be a central reason for us making the top 4 (if we make it) which will make us a ton of cash (hopefully). I'm very, very happy with how the situation was dealt with and let's see what happens this summer. My own opinion is he is unlikely to move for the same reason he didn't last summer and that is fine with me.
Last edited:
People just settle on a particular narrative and then that's it forever - Kane got a few ankle impact injuries and it was a concern for maybe 2 seasons but generally he plays pretty much every single game.
My point is simply that two things can be true simultaneously - the club acted in its own perceived best interests and Kane has a perfectly good right to be resentful of how he has been treated by Levy. This is all premised on the assumption that some kind of deal existed between him and Levy about being able to leave for a reasonable offer, which I saw reported last summer but never super reliably. If that assumption is wrong, then Kane has very little to complain about.
Refusing to negotiate for anything below £150m was not a stance consistent with a promise (if that promise did exist) to sell Kane if a reasonable offer arrived. That's the position you take if you are dead set on refusing reasonable offers, which would probably have been in the 100-110m range given Kane's age and the demonstrable fact that strikers age worse than any other position in the PL. One of the single most consistent trends in the transfer market is the age cliff where valuations decline as players approach 30 and then disappear nearly completely after 30. £150m would have been the third highest transfer fee of all time, in a post-covid economically depressed market, for a player nearing the end of his prime, and the highest ever for a club not named PSG. Throw in the projected wages and fees and a buying club was probably looking at paying something like £230-250m over the course of a four year contract for a player that would not have any resale value at the end. It was a price that nobody was ever going to pay.
I agree that he is unlikely to move this summer for the same reasons.
Last edited:
Whitwell says United should be in for Kane, which is his opinion but he can't see United signing Kane and Rice because it isn't realistic.
Mitten on the other hand says that United won't be going crazy in the window and from what he's sensing from the club, he can't see the club spending money on 'ridiculously priced' players.
Mitten on the other hand says that United won't be going crazy in the window and from what he's sensing from the club, he can't see the club spending money on 'ridiculously priced' players.
Kane is under contract so Levy is entitled to ask whatever he wants. Whether he can keep Kane motivated staying at the club without chance for any trophy just like Arsenal is another matter. Kane and his agent did this to themselves signed the contract without a way out. If he has Raiola as his agent thing may be different.
He'll be 29 start of next season. Initially I'd be against this, mainly due to his age. We need to be looking at younger players. We also need to improve several positions and Kane would cost a lot. I don't see him having an RVP effect at United either.
I hope ETH would be against this as well due to the money aspect and needing to improve several positions.
On the other hand, if we can't find a younger, more suitable striker, and Kane would be available for say 50-60m(
), and he agreed to a 3 year contract ( ), maybe we should consider it.I don't understand why people are concern about the age of a player and transfer fee. That's the business of the money man and DOF in Man Utd. They for sure will do their math to see if they can afford the player and also the risk.He'll be 29 start of next season. Initially I'd be against this, mainly due to his age. We need to be looking at younger players. We also need to improve several positions and Kane would cost a lot. I don't see him having an RVP effect at United either.
I hope ETH would be against this as well due to the money aspect and needing to improve several positions.
On the other hand, if we can't find a younger, more suitable striker, and Kane would be available for say 50-60m(
Probably true. Just by using common sense. But I am quite doubtful either of them know more than us.
Would also like to add, people tend to worry missing out on CL will hamper us. I think it might be the other way around. We will be quite worried staying there due to the progress of Arsenal and Chelsea under Arteta/Tuchel.
Furthermore, if players like Cavani, Lingard, Pogba, Martial etc leaves there might be room for spending.
The business of the money impacts the running of the football club and its chances for success.
I do agree.
I think a bit of calculated guessing is taking place because they have to feed the transfer muppets.
of course but that is still the business of the money man and DOF in Man Utd. They are hired to do that job. I personally never concern about Arsenal's finance on released Ozil and Auba for free, or lose Ramsey for free. That is Edu's business, and that's why i don't understand.
Surely not. If we are signing an expensive English player then it rather be Rice.
Genuinely, if our two main targets this summer are Kane and Rice - I give up.
How much do you think we can get for vdb and martial?
The net for transfer fee and salary is nothing for Man Utd if Kane can perform at current level for another 2 to 3 year. The issue however is what to do with CR7.
Say what you will but he is a class player and a very good goal scorer. With Cavani and Greenwood and potentially Ronaldo out, United will need a top striker. With Haaland seemingly out of the picture there are very few choices. It would be mad to go in to a new season with a complete unknown young potential striker like Nunes. With Kane, Bruno, Sancho and one other, maybe a better Rashford, we would have a dependable attack supported by young Elanga and maybe Amad and Hannibal. Maybe in 2 or 3 years time if Kane can't do it anymore, McNeill or Hugill will be ready to step up.
As a fan, I am worried about his age and potential injuries, but if I'm the manager I make it a priority to get him as a top level striker and look to make more bargain signings in other areas. Maybe Martial could be used to lower the price too.
As a fan, I am worried about his age and potential injuries, but if I'm the manager I make it a priority to get him as a top level striker and look to make more bargain signings in other areas. Maybe Martial could be used to lower the price too.
I appreciate and agree with your response but I was asking the question to the other guy because I'm interested to know who he thinks will spend decent transfer fees on our overpaid surplus.
You being a gooner should be aware of the difficulties of selling players that are being paid above their market value or above their prospective buyers wage structure.
The poster that I replied to said "sell vdb and martial plus 40m on top." Assuming Kane is around 100m, that would mean 30m each, give or take, for vdb and martial. I personally, can't see any clubs offering that kind of money in addition to taking on their respective wages. Far too many utd fans on here playing football manager in their heads. The only decent sale we've made in the past few years has been Dan James, who was on relatively low wages. Arguably Lukaku, but he is a proven goalscorer.
Referring back to your post; I don't think we'll buy Kane if Ronaldo stays. I think we'd go for a younger, less proven, rotational striker.
it is very difficult to sell players a club doesn't want as every club out there can see that they are surplus to requirement. They will take them on loan at best. Arsenal has an army of unwanted players on loan right now. The worst case is at least you can get the salary off the book, just like Ozil and Auba for Arsenal. My point is with Man Utd's resource if the management does the math and figure they can afford Kane (without any resale value), then he is an extremely good addition to the team. Kane is never a fast player and his play making ability is top notch. He looks very professional and take good care of his body. He never relies on his speed or explosiveness in his game so I don't see he will regress tremendously in the next 2 season. He will be a good buy even at age 29. If your new manager plays the LVG football then Kane is a perfect false 9 for that. There is a reason Pep wanted him so bad last summer even at age 28.
The issue however is what to do with CR7. He is the elephant in the room.