Harry Kane | Bayern Munich player

jderbyshire said:
I disagree.

If we'd scored a couple of goals in each of these games, the Shaw handball and De Gea gaff wouldn't have mattered.

And we all know Kane's style of play includes dropping deep and being involved in the build-up, so I think he would actually improve our control of the midfield.
Click to expand...
Yesterday & the Sevilla games are prime examples of us conceding before the game has even really started though, for all the goals Kane would score we’d be playing from behind so many times he wouldn’t be able to cure all ails.

Maybe we don’t get to 90*5 at 0-0 versus Brighton but DdG yesterday & the Maguire show aren’t avoidable by spending £100mil on a striker.

Kane can’t play the ball to himself, if he’s helping us keep possession by dropping deep who’s he playing the ball to up front? You’re placing all this pressure on a man we should be expecting to score goals, him dropoing deep shouldn’t be fundamental to our midfield play.
 
Siorac said:
Exactly this.

Signing Kane is a gamble: we are betting on him and Casemiro to have the longevity of Benzema and Modric. Otherwise by the time we get all the pieces in (if we ever do) we might have to look for their replacements instead of actually challenging.
Click to expand...
Which is part of the reason I think the signing may not work. If he were the RvP to an already decorated squad then fine but we aren’t even close.

We conceded 5 goals, scoring 2, to a terrible Sevilla team in 2 legs, people are asking for a Kane to score 4 to make up for the 3 goal discrepancy, that’s not how it works. People are setting themselves up to be further upset.
 
AFC NimbleThumb said:
Which is part of the reason I think the signing may not work. If he were the RvP to an already decorated squad then fine but we aren’t even close.

We conceded 5 goals, scoring 2, to a terrible Sevilla team in 2 legs, people are asking for a Kane to score 4 to make up for the 3 goal discrepancy, that’s not how it works. People are setting themselves up to be further upset.
Click to expand...
Yes. Kane is a "final piece in the puzzle" type of signing, not someone who could be expected to drag our team from mediocrity to a title challenge. He couldn't do that at Spurs and he won't do that at United.
 
Last edited:
AFC NimbleThumb said:
This guy does feck all to address Shaw’s flailing arm on Thursday or DdG’s chocolate wrists yesterday, he also doesn’t change the fact our midfield can’t possess the ball very well.

I want us to sign a striker & would be happy if that striker is Kane but we have a prime example at Spurs of what happens when the rest of the team is flawed. We are not a player away from challenging.
Click to expand...

We obviously wouldn't be buying "just" one player though would we. It would be Kane, plus a midfielder, keeper, defender etc. Just look at the model Arsenal used last summer. Jesus was their marquee signing and was surrounded by a group of smaller ones like Zinchenko, Jorginho, Trossard, Fabio Viera etc. That got them from 5th to nearly winning the league this year. Much obviously also depends on the manager and coaches getting the balance right in terms of tactics to get the best out of the players he has, which Arteta seems to have done.
 
AFC NimbleThumb said:
This guy does feck all to address Shaw’s flailing arm on Thursday or DdG’s chocolate wrists yesterday, he also doesn’t change the fact our midfield can’t possess the ball very well.

I want us to sign a striker & would be happy if that striker is Kane but we have a prime example at Spurs of what happens when the rest of the team is flawed. We are not a player away from challenging.
Click to expand...

What has that got to do with anything? So we shouldn’t sign a striker (even though we have only score 49 league goals this season) because the keeper is shit and the midfield needs reinforcements?
 
Cassidy said:
What has that got to do with anything? So we shouldn’t sign a striker (even though we have only score 49 league goals this season) because the keeper is shit and the midfield needs reinforcements?
Click to expand...
Amazing you needed to explain such a simple thing. Let’s not sign a striker because it doesn’t solve the individual defensive dumb mistakes even though we can’t score for shit.
 
Cassidy said:
What has that got to do with anything? So we shouldn’t sign a striker (even though we have only score 49 league goals this season) because the keeper is shit and the midfield needs reinforcements?
Click to expand...
Let's sign a striker but let's not delude ourselves that with a striker we're immediately challenging for the title. We aren't. Are we willing to risk signing another 30-year old, knowing that by the time the other pieces are in place, he might have to be replaced? Can we afford to gamble on Kane having Benzema-like longevity? At one point we have to move away from short-termism and build a team instead of looking for shortcuts.
 
Cassidy said:
What has that got to do with anything? So we shouldn’t sign a striker (even though we have only score 49 league goals this season) because the keeper is shit and the midfield needs reinforcements?
Click to expand...
i think, for me at least, the thinking is we shouldnt blow the entirety (or near entirety) of the budget on just one striker. By all accounts kane would take up most of the budget, then wed be looking at sales to maybe add in a couple of other spots. Id be looking to spend half of what it costs to bring in a striker, allowing for more money to be invested in truly reshaping the squad. We need to do much better on finding release clause players who can be had for good prices. City did a great job on alvarez up front i believe, we should be targeting players like that every year.
 
Siorac said:
Yes. Kane is a "final piece in the puzzle" type of signing, not someone who could be expected to drag our team form mediocrity to a title challenge. He couldn't do that at Spurs and he won't do that at United.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely spot on. By the time the rest of our team is sorted Kane will shot and need to be replaced. I'd rather buy someone like Hojlund or Sesko now who can grow with the team.
 
Raoul said:
We obviously wouldn't be buying "just" one player though would we. It would be Kane, plus a midfielder, keeper, defender etc. Just look at the model Arsenal used last summer. Jesus was their marquee signing and was surrounded by a group of smaller ones like Zinchenko, Jorginho, Trossard, Fabio Viera etc. That got them from 5th to nearly winning the league this year. Much obviously also depends on the manager and coaches getting the balance right in terms of tactics to get the best out of the players he has, which Arteta seems to have done.
Click to expand...
I think Kane is going to cost a fair bit more than Jesus, in truth. So that's quite a big difference between us and what Arsenal did. It would be nice to think Levy is going to sign away Kane for £70million to Man Utd on a bunch of installments. That would work perfectly for our window, but if that's clear to me, it's probably not going to fill Levy with enthusiasm. I think we're looking at higher than that, and I think we're likely to be looking at a structure that would dent what we could do elsewhere.

It would certainly leave us scrambling around with free transfers, lower cost options and trying to sell players which isn't a traditional strong suit. It's hard to imagine we could be spending 40 million on each of those positions in addition to Kane, and 40 million is actually pretty modest when United come calling for a player as we discovered last year.
 
Abraxas said:
I think Kane is going to cost a fair bit more than Jesus, in truth. So that's quite a big difference between us and what Arsenal did. It would be nice to think Levy is going to sign away Kane for £70million to Man Utd on a bunch of installments. That would work perfectly for our window, but if that's clear to me, it's probably not going to fill Levy with enthusiasm. I think we're looking at higher than that, and I think we're likely to be looking at a structure that would dent what we could do elsewhere.

It would certainly leave us scrambling around with free transfers, lower cost options and trying to sell players which isn't a traditional strong suit. It's hard to imagine we could be spending 40 million on each of those positions in addition to Kane, and 40 million is actually pretty modest when United come calling for a player as we discovered last year.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would have to be Kane. If we get bought this summer, I think we will have far more flexibility to get any striker we want. We should be able to make about 100m from outbound players to offset the cost of buys.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think it would have to be Kane. If we get bought this summer, I think we will have far more flexibility to get any striker we want. We should be able to make about 100m from outbound players to offset the cost of buys.
Click to expand...
That's ifs and buts at the moment though, isn't it? With no sale imminent, the current situation is dictated by our finances and we did spend a lot of money last year. The window might come too early for the sale. Certainly the planning has to be in place on the basis that we don't know when a sale will progress, and even if it does, we don't know who the successful party will be and how that will impact transfers. So if you're Murtough and co you have to be prepared for things as they stand.

I'm not as confident as you that we will easily secure 100 million in sales. I've seen a few people suggest how we might make that sort of money, but sometimes the fees on paper as a hypothetical and our actual record of sales don't seem to align. Usually there are problems securing the fee we think should be possible and sometimes we can't even get them out of the door.
 
Abraxas said:
That's ifs and buts at the moment though, isn't it? With no sale imminent, the current situation is dictated by our finances and we did spend a lot of money last year. The window might come too early for the sale. Certainly the planning has to be in place on the basis that we don't know when a sale will progress, and even if it does, we don't know who the successful party will be and how that will impact transfers. So if you're Murtough and co you have to be prepared for things as they stand.

I'm not as confident as you that we will easily secure 100 million in sales. I've seen a few people suggest how we might make that sort of money, but sometimes the fees on paper as a hypothetical and our actual record of sales don't seem to align. Usually there are problems securing the fee we think should be possible for many years, and sometimes we can't even get them out of the door.
Click to expand...

I don't think buying a top striker is dependent on the sale, although it would make it easier. We can still eliminate about 100-120m worth of dead wood players and use that to fund about 200m worth of buys, which would easily get us a top striker and a few other players.
 
Raoul said:
Agreed. The number one problem is goals, so signing an experienced striker should be priority #1. Using the Arse experience as an example, they moved up to the next level after getting Jesus, where everyone else started magically playing better and look at them now.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we can be Arsenal next year, Chelsea or even Liverpool. The thing is we have to make the best sure signing possible this summer and Kane is the right profile with how our squad is playing now and he also guarantee goals. You sign Oshimen or someone else then the ways of playing will be different and we will still have to make transition again. Build from what we already have and add more to make it better.

We or EtH cant expect to keep building and building because believe it or not fans will want EtH gone after 2 years if he still keep having mix results and ways of playing. He also wont want to continue having his managing years in cycles of building and transition without any noteworthy of success.
 
Raoul said:
We obviously wouldn't be buying "just" one player though would we. It would be Kane, plus a midfielder, keeper, defender etc. Just look at the model Arsenal used last summer. Jesus was their marquee signing and was surrounded by a group of smaller ones like Zinchenko, Jorginho, Trossard, Fabio Viera etc. That got them from 5th to nearly winning the league this year. Much obviously also depends on the manager and coaches getting the balance right in terms of tactics to get the best out of the players he has, which Arteta seems to have done.
Click to expand...
We’d be spending the vast majority of a limited budget on one & the poster I responded to expects him to play passes to himself. No one said we would be buying one player so not sure what you’re on about tbh. Kane + etc. etc. isn’t the thread.

As for the Arsenal model last year, that was 3 years or so into the Arteta reign, you’re falling for the one more transfer window nonsense when the team needs changes all over.
Cassidy said:
What has that got to do with anything? So we shouldn’t sign a striker (even though we have only score 49 league goals this season) because the keeper is shit and the midfield needs reinforcements?
Click to expand...
My post. . .
AFC NimbleThumb said:
I want us to sign a striker & would be happy if that striker is Kane
Click to expand...
Read & compehend.

I’m saying Kane isn’t all we need, far from it. I literally say the exact opposite of what you’re crying over.
 
Siorac said:
Let's sign a striker but let's not delude ourselves that with a striker we're immediately challenging for the title. We aren't. Are we willing to risk signing another 30-year old, knowing that by the time the other pieces are in place, he might have have to be replaced.
Click to expand...
You can make more than 1 signing in a window
 
FerociousCorgis said:
i think, for me at least, the thinking is we shouldnt blow the entirety (or near entirety) of the budget on just one striker. By all accounts kane would take up most of the budget, then wed be looking at sales to maybe add in a couple of other spots. Id be looking to spend half of what it costs to bring in a striker, allowing for more money to be invested in truly reshaping the squad. We need to do much better on finding release clause players who can be had for good prices. City did a great job on alvarez up front i believe, we should be targeting players like that every year.
Click to expand...
I don’t pretend to know what the budget is and as for strikers Kane is probably on the cheaper side of whats being quoted out there at the moment anyway.

Kane wouldn’t even be my first choice more due to his age though.
 
Cassidy said:
I don’t pretend to know what the budget is and as for strikers Kane is probably on the cheaper side of whats being quoted out there at the moment anyway.

Kane wouldn’t even be my first choice more due to his age though.
Click to expand...
What makes you think he'll be cheaper than what's being quoted? Also by how much? Even 70m + his wages, it's going to leave us extremely little room for much else.
 
Lash said:
What makes you think he'll be cheaper than what's being quoted? Also by how much? Even 70m + his wages, it's going to leave us extremely little room for much else.
Click to expand...
I meant other strikers like Osimhen, Ramos etc
 
jderbyshire said:
I disagree.

If we'd scored a couple of goals in each of these games, the Shaw handball and De Gea gaff wouldn't have mattered.

And we all know Kane's style of play includes dropping deep and being involved in the build-up, so I think he would actually improve our control of the midfield.
Click to expand...

Yeah precisely,because we aren't scoring enough it means we end up getting punished for errors like Shaw handball and De Gea calamity
 
If we can afford ''at least'' midfielder that can take Eriksen's spot, sign new starting XI keeper let's say Diogo Costa, 100m Kane and one more for right back or centre back (both would be great) then I have no issue. But I don't think we can afford those three positions plus Kane due to FFP because not only he cost 100m but also his wages demand will be 300k-350k at least given that he's going to be on his 30ish he will want high wages. A very risky signing that will blow our 100m budget. I would rather wait in January when Spurs can be forced to sell Kane for cheaper or when Toney finished his ban. This summer isn't ideal to buy striker but it's more ideal to buy other positions.
 
Can't stand another season of that plank Martial, plus I don't want to talk about Weghorst playing for Utd ever again. Can we please sign a decent striker. I would prefer Kane and that Danish kid in Italy for the price of Osimhen.
 
arthurka said:
Can't stand another season of that plank Martial, plus I don't want to talk about Weghorst playing for Utd ever again. Can we please sign a decent striker. I would prefer Kane and that Danish kid in Italy for the price of Osimhen.
Click to expand...

Yeah we can't wait another season for striker
 
UNITED ACADEMY said:
If we can afford ''at least'' midfielder that can take Eriksen's spot, sign new starting XI keeper let's say Diogo Costa, 100m Kane and one more for right back or centre back (both would be great) then I have no issue. But I don't think we can afford those three positions plus Kane due to FFP because not only he cost 100m but also his wages demand will be 300k-350k at least given that he's going to be on his 30ish he will want high wages. A very risky signing that will blow our 100m budget. I would rather wait in January when Spurs can be forced to sell Kane for cheaper or when Toney finished his ban. This summer isn't ideal to buy striker but it's more ideal to buy other positions.
Click to expand...
We can't go into the season with Martial as our only striker, priority has to be a striker even if it uses most of our budget. Then we'll have to sell players to fund other positions we need.
As for Kane's wages if we let De Gea go that covers it
 
Edwards6 said:
We can't go into the season with Martial as our only striker, priority has to be a striker even if it uses most of our budget. Then we'll have to sell players to fund other positions we need.
As for Kane's wages if we let De Gea go that covers it
Click to expand...

We also can't go into the season with DDG as our keeper and Eriksen that can't play full 90 mins.

Alternatives we can go, sign Marcus Thuram for free for half season short term then sign Kane or Toney in January. Or sign Højlund and develop him.
 
UNITED ACADEMY said:
We also can't go into the season with DDG as our keeper and Eriksen that can't play full 90 mins.

Alternatives we can go, sign Marcus Thuram for free for half season short term then sign Kane or Toney in January. Or sign Højlund and develop him.
Click to expand...

No chance Kane will move in January,in regards to Toney how come no journos have any idea how long he could get banned
 


Doesn’t sound someone who is going to push for a move. Hope we’re not wasting our time.
 
Zoo said:


Doesn’t sound someone who is going to push for a move. Hope we’re not wasting our time.
Click to expand...


Spending an entire summer chasing a player who we're not really sure wants to come here is our trademark
 
I know it was a penalty today but considering how shite Spurs are, he's scored...again. Could end up on 30 for the season in the league and as Haaland is such a freak, it's a fantastic season.
 
He scored the penalty and for a split second went to run and celebrate it. At 2-1 down. Am I overthinking it?
 
I wanted Osimhen over Kane, but after watching how much we struggle scoring especially in the past few games, I think we need an established finisher and he's the best there is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.