Osimhen v Kane

  • Based on the club's statement regarding Mason Greenwood, the site's current policy will continue until further clarity about the player's future is known.

    So to reiterate, all discussions about Mason Greenwood remain off limits.

Well...


  • Total voters
    569
  • This poll will close: .

Blackbeard

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 24, 2022
Messages
142
Supports
Bristol City
Kane is ten times the player.
 

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
22,657
Neither. Kane is on the wrong end of 30 and has had a lot of injuries. Osimhen will cost stupid money, which I don't personally think he can live up to.
He had ankle trouble a few years ago but has only missed like 5 games in last two seasons. I also don't see the age as issue looking at RVP & Teddy
 

Strelok

Full Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
3,766
For me it's rather simple. If both cost +100m each I'd take Oshimhen. If Kane would cost 50-60m then definitely Kane. Then use the money left to buy a good ball carrier/orchestra midfielder.
 

Lecland07

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2021
Messages
1,967
I think Osimhen will cost closer to €150m, to be honest (flat-out fee with supplements on top for performance). If Chelsea and us get involved in a bidding war, it would not surprise me if it reached this level. Chelsea are showing they are willing to splash out enormous sums - Napoli will take full advantage of that.

I also believe that Kane will go for significantly less than €100m. Letting Kane go for free isn't really an option for Tottenham. Even though people argue it is, they will need money to buy a replacement in the future along with other signings. They cannot afford to let him go for nothing. I think a figure around €60m-€70m is quite realistic to complete the signing.

I would prefer Kane as I believe he suits us better than Osimhen. Kane's hold-up play is massively underrated; he is fantastic at it. He has an incredible passing range. Fantastic at positioning and can score all kinds of goals. He is the complete striker. People are too obsessed with sell-on value; ManUtd want to sign players who will stay, not leave.

Whilst people say Osimhen will be a better signing due to the resale value, but do we want to consider that? In the end, if we want to sell him, it means that he is not good enough. We will likely have a tough time selling him for a good fee because of the wages we offer (even if the £200k cap is true, this is still much higher than the vast majority of clubs can afford). We will probably end up stuck with an average player for years, on top of then needing to sell him. Potential future sell-on value does have severe issues when deciding who the best signing is.
 
Last edited:

ThinkTank@Cafe

Full Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
2,163
Location
Kazakhstan
I think Osimhen will cost closer to €150m, to be honest (flat-out fee with supplements on top for performance). If Chelsea and us get involved in a bidding war, it would not surprise me if it reached this level. Chelsea are showing they are willing to splash out enormous sums - Napoli will take full advantage of that.

I also believe that Kane will go for significantly less than €100m. Letting Kane go for free isn't really an option for Tottenham. Even though people argue it is, they will need money to buy a replacement in the future along with other signings. They cannot afford to let him go for nothing. I think a figure around €60m-€70m is quite realistic to complete the signing.

I would prefer Kane as I believe he suits us better than Osimhen. Kane's hold-up play is massively underrated; he is fantastic at it. He has an incredible passing range. Fantastic at positioning and can score all kinds of goals. He is the complete striker. People are too obsessed with sell-on value; ManUtd want to sign players who will stay, not leave.

Whilst people say Osimhen will be a better signing due to the resale value, but do we want to consider that? In the end, if we want to sell him, it means that he is not good enough. We will likely have a tough time selling him for a good fee because of the wages we offer (even if the £200k cap is true, this is still much higher than the vast majority of clubs can afford). We will probably end up stuck with an average player for years, on top of then needing to sell him. Potential future sell-on value does have severe issues when deciding who the best signing is.
Voice of sense. Especially given our record with player adaptations to the country, city and league.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
31,123
Potential future sell-on value does have severe issues when deciding who the best signing is.
Oh absolutely, it's just a relative point when it comes to comparing their current market value.

Spending £100m on Osimhen isn't the same as spending £100m on Kane. Because in 4 or 5 years time, you will almost certainly hold more value in a 28/29 year old Osimhen than a 34/35 year old Kane. The fact that one asset is likely to depreciate in value quicker than the other impacts the financial risk involved in buying them and their present value.

That doesn't automatically mean Osimhen is a better signing than Kane though, it just means you have to weigh the cost of signing them differently.
 

lex talionis

Full Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
8,789
It has to be Kane. We can’t wait a season or two for Osimhen to acclimate to the prem. Do Kane and take a punt on the next Osimhen to come up after Kane.
 

Big Ray

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 23, 2022
Messages
42
What are his pressing stats like? This will obviously be a massive factor for ETH.
 

Ricardo de la Vega

Full Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
769
Kane is ten times the player.
At the moment, but he looks worn out, he's played so many games, never gets any rest for Tottenham or England. I like Osimen's age, he's on the way up. I've only watched him twice in Serie A and he was utterly gash both games, spent most of it rolling around on the floor looking for cards/free kicks then missed a sitter and did nothing else but everyone say's he's great so maybe he improved since I watched him...
 

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
22,657
At the moment, but he looks worn out, he's played so many games, never gets any rest for Tottenham or England. I like Osimen's age, he's on the way up. I've only watched him twice in Serie A and he was utterly gash both games, spent most of it rolling around on the floor looking for cards/free kicks then missed a sitter and did nothing else but everyone say's he's great so maybe he improved since I watched him...
Will agree he has already played a lot of football for someone of his age and do have concerns it's taken toll on him
 

sincher

"I will cry if Rooney leaves"
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
25,265
Location
YSC
The thing about this is that clearly Kane is better and a safer bet, but I pretty much always prefer to have players hit their peak at United. Surely Kane has peaked already? Might depend on the fee.
 

simonhch

Horrible boss
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
13,432
Location
Yankee Doodle land
Supports
Urban Combat Preparedness
I am highly skeptical about spending massive money on a player from Serie A, based on their goal scoring exploits. Just in recent years we’ve seen big money signings like Lukaku struggle badly in the PL, but absolutely tear it up in Serie A. It’s very hard to apply that logic universally, but a big reason why I’ve struggled to rate players like Lautaro in the last. Now the same goes for Osimhen.

I have the same feeling about big money signings from the Bundesliga, based on their stats. It’s not an aversion to signing players from those leagues, not at all, it’s an aversion to spending 75m+ on anyone from either of those leagues. Firstly, history tells us that 100m+ signings rarely work out in the context of their performance, and even less so in the context of their performance and fee. History also tells us that expensive signings from both leagues tend to struggle to replicate their impact in the PL.

When I watch Osimhen, I see a player that’s very good, but has enough technical deficiency that he could potentially be exposed as very overrated once he’s playing in the PL. I’m far from certain of this assessment, but I’d be very nervous about spending the bulk of my budget on him.

Kane on the other hand, he’s the modern day Shearer. His goal scoring game doesn’t rely on pace, and he guarantees you 25-30 goals a season. And not in a Ronaldo type way, where the whole team had to sacrifice themself for him to hit those numbers. He’s very team orientated, and is as good as it gets in the build up and playmaking. The concern is his limited pressing ability. But pressing is done as much in the head, as it is the legs, so I imagine ETH would be able to coach some intelligent pressing out of him.

With Kane it comes down to price. If he costs less than 65-70m, you sign him. His game won’t deteriorate rapidly after 30, because he doesn’t rely on his pace. He’ll remain world class for another 3 years or so I’d say. And he potentially brings a title of all the other pieces are in place.

He is also a huge shot in the arm from a reputation standpoint. The biggest club in England, signing the England captain, England’s best player, and perhaps the league’s marquee player. I wouldn’t do it just for that. That’s the old United. But having him be one of the best strikers in the world, and have that profile, well signing him would be like the old, old United.

I mean, i know that i mean.

So, Kane.
 

Blackbeard

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 24, 2022
Messages
142
Supports
Bristol City
At the moment, but he looks worn out, he's played so many games, never gets any rest for Tottenham or England. I like Osimen's age, he's on the way up. I've only watched him twice in Serie A and he was utterly gash both games, spent most of it rolling around on the floor looking for cards/free kicks then missed a sitter and did nothing else but everyone say's he's great so maybe he improved since I watched him...
Kane is a dead cert though as much as any player can be. You know you are going to get at least three years out of him hitting the net on a very regular basis.
 

Amarsdd

Full Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
2,695
Kane is an easy choice here. I'd much rather have the best possible players in the spine of our team, with players whose "value won't depreciate in 5 year times" playing/acclimatising to the PL/developing around them.
 

Lash

Full Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
9,418
Location
London
Supports
Millwall, Saint-Etienne
I also believe that Kane will go for significantly less than €100m. Letting Kane go for free isn't really an option for Tottenham. Even though people argue it is, they will need money to buy a replacement in the future along with other signings. They cannot afford to let him go for nothing. I think a figure around €60m-€70m is quite realistic to complete the signing.
Why is it not an option? I will bet my house that he will never go to a league rival for 60-70m euro.

What use is that sort of fee to Spurs? It won't even make a dent into replacing a player like Kane. Add to that you're making a direct rival better, that price tag is delusional.
 

Blackbeard

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 24, 2022
Messages
142
Supports
Bristol City
Why is it not an option? I will bet my house that he will never go to a league rival for 60-70m euro.

What use is that sort of fee to Spurs? It won't even make a dent into replacing a player like Kane. Add to that you're making a direct rival better, that price tag is delusional.
Because he only has one year left on his contract and they can’t afford to let him go next year for nothing. I think Utd will end up over paying slightly when you take in to account his age and only having a year left because it’s Levy. It would still be worth over paying slightly though for an out and out striker like Kane. I think he would be amazing spearheading the attack with the other players the club have around him. It’s a cliche but I think he could be the missing piece.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
58,950
Neither

Levy would expect 70m for Kane. At his age its simply not worth it. Meanwhile Napoli will take us to the cleaners for Osimhen ie a player who had only scored goals in a league were Immobile usually owns it.
 

Lash

Full Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
9,418
Location
London
Supports
Millwall, Saint-Etienne
Because he only has one year left on his contract and they can’t afford to let him go next year for nothing. I think Utd will end up over paying slightly when you take in to account his age and only having a year left because it’s Levy. It would still be worth over paying slightly though for an out and out striker like Kane. I think he would be amazing spearheading the attack with the other players the club have around him. It’s a cliche but I think he could be the missing piece.
Why? If he's going anyway, that money won't replace his goals for the next season and likely drastically increase ours. There's no benefit to spurs. Let him leave at 31 on a free and replace him then - you've got a ridiculous amount of years from Kane, who cost them nothing.
 

Blackbeard

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 24, 2022
Messages
142
Supports
Bristol City
Why? If he's going anyway, that money won't replace his goals for the next season and likely drastically increase ours. There's no benefit to spurs. Let him leave at 31 on a free and replace him then - you've got a ridiculous amount of years from Kane, who cost them nothing.
I get what you are saying but it’s Spurs and Levy. The fee they could get in the summer is still significant to them. They could get a couple young squad options with that money or nothing at all. Remember they are Spurs and top four is realistically what they are aiming for.
 

Okey

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2017
Messages
2,207
It has to be Kane. We can’t wait a season or two for Osimhen to acclimate to the prem. Do Kane and take a punt on the next Osimhen to come up after Kane.
This really. After a lost decade, our 'future' is now. Need to get back to the top sharpish. We even have assets that would interest Spurs as part of the deal. Hendo to replace Lloris. Maybe even Martial?
 

Ranie

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
72
Kane is a proven goalscorer in the PL and the one that probably will smash Shearers record, and still only 29? Ronaldo for example still had three seasons left at Real Madrid at that age. But people would rather see Osimhen? He must be one hell of a player.
 

Lecland07

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2021
Messages
1,967
Why is it not an option? I will bet my house that he will never go to a league rival for 60-70m euro.

What use is that sort of fee to Spurs? It won't even make a dent into replacing a player like Kane. Add to that you're making a direct rival better, that price tag is delusional.
€70m is a hell of a lot of money - they will get nothing next year and, even if they do keep him, the likelihood is that they won't stand a chance of getting top four. Newcastle will be stronger next season; Chelsea will likely be a lot better; Liverpool? It is getting increasingly difficult for them to compete both in the table and financially - letting him go for free would be complete negligence. We are the most likely club for Kane to go to, and we are already better than them - the impact on Tottenham won't be that big as, if our progress continues like this, we won't be their competitor next season: we will be looking at the title; Tottenham will be looking at top four.

Tottenham are a club that have to buy smart - they need that money to start a rebuild. Tottenham have a lot of debt from the stadium. It is important for them to get money from the sale of Kane. There will be posturing from them to get the highest price possible, of course, but no club is going to pay €100m and they know it. They will end up accepting a much lower offer as they have no choice.

In the end, there is no real benefit for Tottenham to keep him, to be honest, as they are not in a great position to get top four even with him. They will also be keeping a frustrated player. He will be gone this coming summer; I am dead certain about this.
 

TheRedHearted

Full Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
1,844
Location
New York, NY
I am highly skeptical about spending massive money on a player from Serie A, based on their goal scoring exploits. Just in recent years we’ve seen big money signings like Lukaku struggle badly in the PL, but absolutely tear it up in Serie A. It’s very hard to apply that logic universally, but a big reason why I’ve struggled to rate players like Lautaro in the last. Now the same goes for Osimhen.

I have the same feeling about big money signings from the Bundesliga, based on their stats. It’s not an aversion to signing players from those leagues, not at all, it’s an aversion to spending 75m+ on anyone from either of those leagues. Firstly, history tells us that 100m+ signings rarely work out in the context of their performance, and even less so in the context of their performance and fee. History also tells us that expensive signings from both leagues tend to struggle to replicate their impact in the PL.

When I watch Osimhen, I see a player that’s very good, but has enough technical deficiency that he could potentially be exposed as very overrated once he’s playing in the PL. I’m far from certain of this assessment, but I’d be very nervous about spending the bulk of my budget on him.

Kane on the other hand, he’s the modern day Shearer. His goal scoring game doesn’t rely on pace, and he guarantees you 25-30 goals a season. And not in a Ronaldo type way, where the whole team had to sacrifice themself for him to hit those numbers. He’s very team orientated, and is as good as it gets in the build up and playmaking. The concern is his limited pressing ability. But pressing is done as much in the head, as it is the legs, so I imagine ETH would be able to coach some intelligent pressing out of him.

With Kane it comes down to price. If he costs less than 65-70m, you sign him. His game won’t deteriorate rapidly after 30, because he doesn’t rely on his pace. He’ll remain world class for another 3 years or so I’d say. And he potentially brings a title of all the other pieces are in place.

He is also a huge shot in the arm from a reputation standpoint. The biggest club in England, signing the England captain, England’s best player, and perhaps the league’s marquee player. I wouldn’t do it just for that. That’s the old United. But having him be one of the best strikers in the world, and have that profile, well signing him would be like the old, old United.

I mean, i know that i mean.

So, Kane.
History actually tells us 50 percent of big signings work out, same ratio as normal. Someone else just posted, wish I saved the article. Same goes for international signings.
 

Lecland07

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2021
Messages
1,967
History actually tells us 50 percent of big signings work out, same ratio as normal. Someone else just posted, wish I saved the article. Same goes for international signings.
Much lower success rate for players over €100m, though - most of them are pretty questionable as to their worth.

Dembele
Felix
Coutinho
Griezmann
Pogba
Lukaku
Hazard
Grealish

That is 8/12 of the biggest signings of all time that could be considered flops, or at least haven't lived up to expectations (I count this as a failure, also). 33% success rate, so €100m signings seem to be best avoided.
 

Lash

Full Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
9,418
Location
London
Supports
Millwall, Saint-Etienne
€70m is a hell of a lot of money - they will get nothing next year and, even if they do keep him, the likelihood is that they won't stand a chance of getting top four. Newcastle will be stronger next season; Chelsea will likely be a lot better; Liverpool? It is getting increasingly difficult for them to compete both in the table and financially - letting him go for free would be complete negligence. We are the most likely club for Kane to go to, and we are already better than them - the impact on Tottenham won't be that big as, if our progress continues like this, we won't be their competitor next season: we will be looking at the title; Tottenham will be looking at top four.

Tottenham are a club that have to buy smart - they need that money to start a rebuild. Tottenham have a lot of debt from the stadium. It is important for them to get money from the sale of Kane. There will be posturing from them to get the highest price possible, of course, but no club is going to pay €100m and they know it. They will end up accepting a much lower offer as they have no choice.

In the end, there is no real benefit for Tottenham to keep him, to be honest. Kane will also not be happy about it, either.
It's not really though, when you're losing your best player and source of the majority of your goals. They have more of a chance with Kane in the team, than without. I still don't understand how it's negligent. He's good as gone anyway, they paid nothing for him, they are better off getting as much time with him at the club as possible.

I genuinely don't think any of your arguments are from the perspective of the interest of Spurs, it's just reasons to justify your valuation. Every club has to buy smart, so do we. It's not important if they only get 60-70m euros, that's a pathetic fee for him. Again they don't have to accept lower than market value for him.

I'm interested to see what someone like @balaks , or any other spurs fans for that matter, thinks
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
25,006
Location
...
A front 4 consisting of Kane, Bruno and Antony has nowhere enough dynamism for me. There will be games where we roll teams over, but not enough variety in it for me and somewhat one-paced. Rashford gives us one outlet, which I think is a bit predictable and easier to defend. I don’t think we are even nearly a good enough team in possession to be a team that doesn’t rely on speed in attack. For me, that only works if you can play like Barcelona/Spain, City etc. a team that struggles to pass and move at speed need runners to release.
 

Red in STL

Full Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
2,366
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
Such a strange decision because he's an unusual type striker built like Drogba who he loved. Sad to say but Greenwood has gone exactly the same way as Morrison which is such a waste of talent
A front 4 consisting of Kane, Bruno and Antony has nowhere enough dynamism for me. There will be games where we roll teams over, but not enough variety in it for me and somewhat one-paced. Rashford gives us one outlet, which I think is a bit predictable and easier to defend. I don’t think we are even nearly a good enough team in possession to be a team that doesn’t rely on speed in attack. For me, that only works if you can play like Barcelona/Spain, City etc. a team that struggles to pass and move at speed need runners to release.
A front 4 of 3 is a novel approach I'll say, guess you're thinking Garnacho's not in ETH's plans, or that Sancho isn't coming back and Amad's a dud?
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
25,006
Location
...
A front 4 of 3 is a novel approach I'll say, guess you're thinking Garnacho's not in ETH's plans, or that Sancho isn't coming back and Amad's a dud?
No, my thinking is that all 6 or 7 of our forwards won’t be playing at once - just 3 (4 including Bruno), and that Kane and Bruno will be amongst that 4 more often than not as will our 100m right winger who can’t run with the ball.

For his positives, one of the main disadvantages of Kane is such an attack will make it hard to stretch teams. Osimhen along with Rashford will help keep teams honest at least. For me, Kane is a striker that really works when his team is dominant in a match, in terms of possession and territory. If not, he is redundant. He can’t be released on transition, he can’t run a channel, and he can’t really do anything individually either. Which is why, given he plays for Spurs and England, he has a number of games where he hardly touches the ball or looks a threat. I think he’d be a great striker for a team like Barcelona. United can’t pass the ball well enough at present, and I think need a striker who can run a bit more than Kane can.
 
Last edited:

Red in STL

Full Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
2,366
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
No, my thinking is that all 6 or 7 of our forwards won’t be playing at once - just 3 (4 including Bruno), and that Kane and Bruno will be amongst that 4 more often than not as will our 100m right winger who can’t run with the ball.

For his positives, one of the main disadvantages of Kane is such an attack will make it hard to stretch teams. Osimhen along with Rashford will help keep teams honest at least. For me, Kane is a striker that really works when his team is dominant in a match, in terms of possession and territory. If not, he is redundant. He can’t be released on transition, he can’t run a channel, and he can’t really do anything individually either. Which is why, given he plays for Spurs and England, he has a number of games where he hardly touches the ball or looks a threat. I think he’d be a great striker for a team like Barcelona. United can’t pass the ball well enough at present, and I think need a striker who can run a bit more than Kane can.
Sorry but United don't need anyone to do the running, they need someone who can hold the ball up, lay off little passes to create chance for the speedsters and score goals - that's what he does and he does it pretty well
 

El Jefe

Full Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
3,418
Kane is unbelievably easy to mark out of big games. If he doesn't get the ball to feet in deeper areas he's a complete ghost, it's happened so many times over that last two seasons. When given space he can be deadly but that happens less and less in the bigger games nowadays. The world cup showed this, he dominated Senegal but against France especially when Upemacano sorted himself out after a dreadful first, Kane did nothing.

He isn't dynamic enough on or off the ball, I hope we avoid him. He doesn't stretch defences anymore, at least nowhere close to the 2016-2020 version.

He's still a great finisher but I'm not a fan of spending a load of money on a player that is no longer the best version of himself. He's still a top player but we saw with Sanchez, Hazard and Griezmann that drop off can happen so suddenly.
 

Dazzmondo

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
5,983
I'm a big fan of Osimhen, but I'm pretty shocked by these poll results tbh. Kane is definitely another level and would be perfect for an ETH team. I would also take Vlahovic ahead of Osimhen because I think he suits a possession based team more, which I think is what ETH wants to take us towards. Kane could be an RVP-like signing that could end up winning us the league. I'd expect him to perform at a top level until at least 33 which would give us plenty of top performances to justify the price. I'm already delighted with the £70m we spent on Casemiro after just half a season, so £70-80m on Kane would be fine imo.
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
25,006
Location
...
Sorry but United don't need anyone to do the running, they need someone who can hold the ball up, lay off little passes to create chance for the speedsters and score goals - that's what he does and he does it pretty well
Which speedsters?
 

Red in STL

Full Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
2,366
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
Kane is unbelievably easy to mark out of big games. If he doesn't get the ball to feet in deeper areas he's a complete ghost, it's happened so many times over that last two seasons. When given space he can be deadly but that happens less and less in the bigger games nowadays. The world cup showed this, he dominated Senegal but against France especially when Upemacano sorted himself out after a dreadful first, Kane did nothing.

He isn't dynamic enough on or off the ball, I hope we avoid him. He doesn't stretch defences anymore, at least nowhere close to the 2016-2020 version.

He's still a great finisher but I'm not a fan of spending a load of money on a player that is no longer the best version of himself. He's still a top player but we saw with Sanchez, Hazard and Griezmann that drop off can happen so suddenly.
No longer the best version of himself, he's currently in the best scoring season of his career!
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
44,672
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
It's not really though, when you're losing your best player and source of the majority of your goals. They have more of a chance with Kane in the team, than without. I still don't understand how it's negligent. He's good as gone anyway, they paid nothing for him, they are better off getting as much time with him at the club as possible.

I genuinely don't think any of your arguments are from the perspective of the interest of Spurs, it's just reasons to justify your valuation. Every club has to buy smart, so do we. It's not important if they only get 60-70m euros, that's a pathetic fee for him. Again they don't have to accept lower than market value for him.

I'm interested to see what someone like @balaks , or any other spurs fans for that matter, thinks
I agree with this take. 60-70m isn't shit nowadays. They sold Bale all those years ago and what did it get them?
 
X