I prioritise RW over striker this summer but if Kane is available then Kane over any RW. He is a leader, more leadership character means good thing for our squad and he can score goals and assists. He's too good to ignored when available. But Levy ain't sell him easily, we know that.
Haaland or Kane?
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
Unless Kane is free or 20-30mil then Haaland all day.
I think Micah Richards made a good point, if you’re going to leave Spurs you’re doing so for trophies, so why would you choose to go to a club that is still in a transition. (United). You’d want to go somewhere where you don’t have to wait and can compete for major honours like the league and champions league.
Even if we added Kane, I don’t think he’d be enough to take us above City or Liverpool if they pull themselves back together next season. He’d certainly drag us closer but still think we are a year or two off so I’d add Haaland now if possible.
I think Micah Richards made a good point, if you’re going to leave Spurs you’re doing so for trophies, so why would you choose to go to a club that is still in a transition. (United). You’d want to go somewhere where you don’t have to wait and can compete for major honours like the league and champions league.
Even if we added Kane, I don’t think he’d be enough to take us above City or Liverpool if they pull themselves back together next season. He’d certainly drag us closer but still think we are a year or two off so I’d add Haaland now if possible.
Last edited:
Kane is a more complete player. Plus Kane doesn't have a cancerous agent.
Kane would be better but I doubt we will buy either. Too expensive.
Micah is stupid and supports City to boot.
United are the biggest club in England and have been very consistent over the past 16 months since Bruno joined.
We are not that far away from competing for the big 2 trophies.
I think it's important to get good quality players who want to be here instead of mercenaries. If both cost huge amounts and want huge salaries on top of that just to consider us, I personally think we're better off with other players.
If players care more about money than the club, I dont think they belong. Pay their fair share and nothing more
I'd prefer haaland but his agent makes me prefer others
If players care more about money than the club, I dont think they belong. Pay their fair share and nothing more
I'd prefer haaland but his agent makes me prefer others
Being the biggest club has nothing to do with winning trophies. City guarantee trophies, we dont. What was the last trophy we won?
There are no doubts at all. We ain't getting either of them.
If given the choice Haaland but I can see both of them staying put this summer.
Both of them are probably staying where they are, but I would take Haaland every time. Already way more lethal and with far more unleashed potential. The myth that we don't create chances needs to go, and Haaland would score shitloads for us even with the current setup. We have scored 100 goals so far this season. Kane is very good, but Haaland will go down as one of the GOAT goalscorers.
The conception of Kane being this creative wizard also needs to go. Before this season he'd made 30 assists in 287 matches for Spurs (1 assist per 743 minutes), in 2021 he's made 3 assists in 19 matches for Spurs (scored 13). Yes! He and Son clicked and outperformed xG and xA by every standard at the start of the season, but that is now back to normal. Haaland has made 7 assists in 21 games for Dortmund so far in 2021......(...and scored 17 as well, despite the dry spell he's currently having)
Over the last 2 seasons Haaland actually has more assists than Kane in all comps:
Haaland made 20 assists in 5753 minutes - an assist every 288 minutes (+ the 77 goals - 75 minutes per goal)
Kane made 18 assists in 6392 minutes - an assist every 355 minutes (+ the 53 goals - 120 minutes per goal)
I just can't find any good reasons for choosing the 28 year old over the 21 year old, should we spend big this summer.
The conception of Kane being this creative wizard also needs to go. Before this season he'd made 30 assists in 287 matches for Spurs (1 assist per 743 minutes), in 2021 he's made 3 assists in 19 matches for Spurs (scored 13). Yes! He and Son clicked and outperformed xG and xA by every standard at the start of the season, but that is now back to normal. Haaland has made 7 assists in 21 games for Dortmund so far in 2021......(...and scored 17 as well, despite the dry spell he's currently having)
Over the last 2 seasons Haaland actually has more assists than Kane in all comps:
Haaland made 20 assists in 5753 minutes - an assist every 288 minutes (+ the 77 goals - 75 minutes per goal)
Kane made 18 assists in 6392 minutes - an assist every 355 minutes (+ the 53 goals - 120 minutes per goal)
I just can't find any good reasons for choosing the 28 year old over the 21 year old, should we spend big this summer.
I go for the cheaper one...like I do most things in life 
I think the current Scunthorpe forward is on a free this summer....I go for the cheaper one...like I do most things in life
I actually think you could get longer out of Kane than Haaland. You will get a maximum contract of three/four years out of Haaland. He won't sign for any longer than that, and I doubt any extensions will happen (unless he turns out to be a disappointment). Considering the near £100m fee, I bet we will keep him for most of the contract, so the resale value will be hit. Either we accept a low fee or he leaves for free when his contract ends. Resale value will not be great for him.
I would prefer Kane. Kane is like hitting two birds with one stone, being both top scorer and top assister in the league. I mean his assist numbers may drop off a bit as I doubt he would come as deep for us, but his goal scoring should improve.
I would prefer Kane. Kane is like hitting two birds with one stone, being both top scorer and top assister in the league. I mean his assist numbers may drop off a bit as I doubt he would come as deep for us, but his goal scoring should improve.
Anyone picking Haaland is wrong. Simply put. If you were picking one to perform and score you goals in the prem... there is literally one winner. Kane. He guarantees your I'd say 20? a season
Sorry, but Haaland is not better than Kane. At all.
Sorry, but Haaland is not better than Kane. At all.
Not just valid but he made a spot on point. Kane should choose City over us, he will be playing under one of the best manager who had won lot of trophies. And also Man City's squad is more in finishing article, while, our squad is still in rebuilding phase.
However, it also depends on Kane himself. Does he prefer the easy way or he could choose Man United which more challenging for him. I think this depends on how well United can finish the season and whether United can win Europe League to be in his list. If United can finish like 5-6 points away to Man City and win Europe League this season, I think it's fair message to Kane that we are not far off and if he comes to us mean he can close that gaps between us and City for league competition.
My preference will be Kane all day, the guy is world class. Imo, adding leadership character ''now'' when they are available should be no 1 priority. He's exactly what we need right now to add that leadership in our squad, and also Kane provides more benefit with his experiences for Rashford & Greenwood than Haaland imo.
But with Levy in charged, I think it's impossible to pull this deal.
I go for the cheaper one...like I do most things in life
The best things in life are free. The second best things are very expensive.
Kane for me.
He's a quality all round footballer and will make our team better. Haaland will score a lot of goals but I don't think he'll necessarily make us a better team. Kane will also score plenty of goals and he's a model pro and a leader (by example if not by team talk). He's older but he still has at least 5 or 6 good years in him and we have quality young attackers coming through who will benefit from his example.
Even if none of the above were true, I wouldn't want Haaland because of Riola. He's an absolute stain on the game and the circus that would come along with this signing would only make me hate the game even more.
He's a quality all round footballer and will make our team better. Haaland will score a lot of goals but I don't think he'll necessarily make us a better team. Kane will also score plenty of goals and he's a model pro and a leader (by example if not by team talk). He's older but he still has at least 5 or 6 good years in him and we have quality young attackers coming through who will benefit from his example.
Even if none of the above were true, I wouldn't want Haaland because of Riola. He's an absolute stain on the game and the circus that would come along with this signing would only make me hate the game even more.
How can you say that so definitively?
Haaland is 7 years younger, and has the potential to boss it for the next decade.
Kane is 28 this summer, misses games repeatedly each season due to ankle injuries, and we have the recent example of Van Persie having one stellar season then dropping off fairly arlamingly the next 18months fresh in our heads.
That's not to say Kane wouldn't be great for us for 2 years, but it's not madness to consider the far younger player who may go on to be even better.
Even if Kane only lasted two seasons, you wouldn't get much longer out of Haaland. I would say his contract would be a max of 3 or 4 years and then he will leave. He wants to play in all the big leagues, so that will be at least the PL, La Liga, and Serie A. He might even want to play in Ligue 1.
There is also a big risk of not get any resale money for Haaland, either, due to this.
I think you would get more than 2 years out of Kane, though, so I think he would be the better signing.
This is all wrong, a deal for Haaland is definitely going to be a 5 year deal. So he either stays with you for 5 years or he leaves after 3-4 years where you will get the resale value.
I am convinced we only would get seriously involved with Kane if he is willing to push for the move otherwise Levy will simply price him out of a move and that's that, in regards to Haaland I don't think Utd want to get involved until next year and think that applies to most clubs who want to sign him bar Chelsea or City
Don't think Chelsea and City want to pay ridiculous money either. €150m plus the wages, agent fees and commissions that would come with it would not be the drop in the ocean people think even for clubs as rich as Chelsea/City. Reckon Lukaku will be the big money ST for this summer and Haaland/Kane will both stay at their clubs
If he wants to play in La Liga, PL, and Serie A, that will be 12 years if you put 4 years on it for each. If he moved on this year, he would be 33 by the end of his final contract in the last league he plays in (Even adding on 1 more year for each league would take him to 36). Again, that is assuming he doesn't want to play in Ligue 1, also.
I doubt a 5 year contract myself as he doesn't seem the type to risk the future he wants. He has made no secret that he wants to play in every big league. I think the most likely outcome is a 4 year contract with 3 played for the club. Adding another year to the contract is too big a risk if he wants the freedom to move on. The club could easily keep him there for the whole time, otherwise.
You wouldn't get a huge amount of money for him, though, as it is very likely the sale would occur just before his last season. If it is too much, the clubs will just wait until he is free, and knowing Haaland's interests, he will not sign an extension just so the club gets money.
Darryl Dike at Barnsley on loan at the moment. Unbelievable talent. Classier player than both, good goal scoring record.
If Haaland and Kane price is too high, go for Dike, and spend the remaining money on a CB.
If Haaland and Kane price is too high, go for Dike, and spend the remaining money on a CB.
Haaland for me, the guy has a higher peak and obviously more years left at the top level. Kane is a better candidate for City who are ready for a striker in their prime.
And having Raiola as an agent means feckall given Madrid and Barcelona are in 400m and 1B Euros in debt respectively. If he comes to United he ain't going nowhere unless we want to.
Maybe a bit off topic, but would that be so bad? I'd absolutely love us to win the league again, if a 100 mil could get us one good season with Harry Kane shooting us to the league title, I'd be all for it even if his performance dropped dramatically after that.
That same 100 mil might get us multiple titles with Haaland, with resale value. No reason Haaland can't be part of a team that dominates for the next 5 or 6 years. If we spend that on Kane, he's got limited years left at the top, what 2 or 3? Whatever he has left in those ankles, Haaland is still 19, that gives him 8 years on Kane. To me it's still a no-brainer.
Saw someone compare Haaland and Raiola to Brock Lesnar and Paul Heyman and now it's all I can see
Maybe. I somehow just feel like Kane would be the perfect fit and give us loads of good moments before declining. Haaland seems brilliant, but less like the immediate quality we need in our squad. I realize it's an emotional argument, though.
I think this is a genuine concern.
I was originally all for Kane over Haaland, but those ankles are sounding alarms.
We have to kill that mentality that players wouldn’t want to stay with us in the long term. If we are at the zenith of performers in Europe there is no reason why Haaland wouldn’t want to carry on with us.
I can't see the parasites buying anything after their super league debacle.
Danny Ings on a free is about all we can hope....
I hope I'm wrong but I don't see us spending this summer.
Danny Ings on a free is about all we can hope....
I hope I'm wrong but I don't see us spending this summer.
Yeah. That's been working well lately. Especially Martial shows lots of signs to be a Premier striker.
Saw someone compare Haaland and Raiola to Brock Lesnar and Paul Heyman and now it's all I can see
I see it too.Pogba joined us and signed 5 year contract (with an additional year extension that can be triggered by the club which the club did) so this is effectively a 6 years contract, Pogba was 23 we he joined and he is 28 now.
Maguire signed on a six-year contract when he joined.
Kai Havertz is on a five-year contract with Chelsea.
Philippe Coutinho signed 5 & half years deal with Barcelona when he first joined them in 2018.
Ousmane Dembélé also igned 5 years deal with Barcelona when he first joined them in 2017.
usually, for these signings with huge transfer fees, the club would not accept a 3/4 year contract with the player, it is 5 years minimum and United if ever they sign Halaand, they would surely tie him to a long term contract (5/6 years at least).
Halaand is just 20 years old now, if he joins and is tied to a long term contract, that is not an issue, because he would still be 27/28 years and can sign another major contract with any club.
Depends on price and what we plan to do with Greenwood. But I’ll take Kane at a good price as we get Greenwood ready for the number 9 position in a few years
Kane. All day, every day.
Haaland may be more prolific, but you back Kane to function in any team in any role.
Haaland may be more prolific, but you back Kane to function in any team in any role.
Kane is amazing, such a complete footballer. He would lead us to a title like van Persie in 2012/2013.
Haaland is a force of nature, very frightening talent. He would be the wiser monetary investment because although he command a huge fee, I truly believe he would only be with us for a few years until moving to another club for an even bigger fee.
Haaland is a force of nature, very frightening talent. He would be the wiser monetary investment because although he command a huge fee, I truly believe he would only be with us for a few years until moving to another club for an even bigger fee.
feck it get both
Haaland is much younger, may have higher seiling, is already same level goal scorer (if not better) and Kane is a bit injury prone. Why to choose Kane?