He could but this would be almost as bad as moving to Arsenal.
Harry Kane | Bayern Munich player
- Thread starter LawCharltonBest
- Start date
He could but this would be almost as bad as moving to Arsenal.
If this continues and nothing changes he will be forced to step aside from running the club as chairman. The Spurs fans have tuned on him big time.
I mean a sample of one is meaningless but the Spurs fan I work with says they’d sympathise with him if he went to that extreme.
He'd be crazy to hold it off one more year. He's probably only got 3 years left at his very best so wasting one of those at Spurs seems pretty stupid.
Do you believe he would take 4 years contract back then when his contract with Spurs still had 3 years left? The situation he has right now, he can demand a worthy contract.
Did you not notice City style of contract renewal? I have key players even approaching 30 to have 4 years cushion. Those kind of contract offer is why other clubs couldn't try to match the contract length to lure their keys players. City highly likely would give 5+1 or outright 6 him then. People here think like FM, when City is not shy to splash the cash. In contrast, Liverpool only give short term contract. Salah renewed last summer only run through 2025 for example. They sold Mane, and now. Origi left last summer, and Firmino will this summer.
And people think Kane would have only cost 100mil 2 years ago? Opening bid can be low, but it doesn't mean final fee. Antony deal was started 50-60mil, but then we got dragged back and ended up cough 80-100 depend on the type of currency you want to use. Levy didn't entertain the idea of selling or he could have squeeze the cash out of City when City had no problem paying 100mil for Grealish, and Lukaku also moved to Chelsea for around that region.
This is all speculative, so please don't state your opinion all as fact without reference to how siffwrent club has different renewal policy.
I don't think the contract length is anything to do with why City retain players. Lots of clubs can offer a long contract if they want, so long as it is at a rate they can afford to begin with. It's probably more to do with the insane wages and under the
table "incentives" as well as having no real sporting reason to move on from Man City under Pep. Those things nobody can match, so that's the point of difference. It just suits your current argument to try and distill player retention into this idea that they may have given a 6 year contract, which as you say yourself is pure speculation anyway.
Besides, we are not Man City, we can not even pretend to do things the same way as they do, but it is largely irrelevant to the basic point which is that when City were buying Kane he was a better proposition than he currently is. That isn't speculative, it is basic logic and common sense and yet you decided to compare the two events on equal terms to justify our potential move for Kane. If you do that you can expect the inconsistencies within that to be pointed out.
He willingness to even contemplate another year there says a lot about his character. Doesn't Ten Hag only want players desperate to play for us? This bloke is happy at SPURS for heaven sake. He's not well.
He won’t be contemplating another year. That’s the opinion of an ex player who doesn’t want to see him go
A slow and unathletic player to join a slow and unathletic team that needs fast and energetic players for its style of play. That sounds just like Manchester United post SAF.
Kane is fantastic but adding him just makes us more sure of a top 2-3 place, we won't be doing much more than that.
We seem to think just buying established players will take us to the promise land. We've signed Ronaldo, Varane and Casemiro and only moved forward slightly.
We need to reset with quality young players with the mentality to play for this club. So more Lichas and no Sanchos.
Kane is fantastic but adding him just makes us more sure of a top 2-3 place, we won't be doing much more than that.
We seem to think just buying established players will take us to the promise land. We've signed Ronaldo, Varane and Casemiro and only moved forward slightly.
We need to reset with quality young players with the mentality to play for this club. So more Lichas and no Sanchos.
Scored in 25 different league games (more than Haaland) this year which was a record with that Spurs side. Wish Levy wasn't such a cnut to do business with.
You can have a slower 9 if the wingers run beyond. Benzema and Lewa have never been absolutely rapid. What Kane lacks in pace he makes up in being able to drop deep and play make.
Honestly age is the only issue with Kane. It's ok saying he's likely got three years left at a good level, but are we likely to be challenging by then? We'll still be building at that point and we don't want our main striker to be on the downward slope when we're (hopefully) ready to challenge for the league and CL with the rest of the squad.
I like Kane, but his age puts me off. It would be typical of United to chase him all over the summer, pay way over the odds (£90m) only to get 2 years out of him and have everyone moaning he wasn't worth the money. We've done this so many times.
I would rather we bought 2 up and coming strikers for £40m each. At least that way we double our chances of one of them making a difference and would fit in with the re-build ETH is undertaking.
Kane, for me, just isn't worth the risk for the amount of money I know Levy would ask for him.
I would rather we bought 2 up and coming strikers for £40m each. At least that way we double our chances of one of them making a difference and would fit in with the re-build ETH is undertaking.
Kane, for me, just isn't worth the risk for the amount of money I know Levy would ask for him.
If we had Kane this season we'd have had 15-19 more points.
Its different when the team is built around you than joining another team and having to fit in their style.
Lewandowski is actually pretty fast but to use him as an example he's hardly changed Barcas fortunes much. Sure they won a very weak league this year but the CL and EL they showed they aren't back to the very top yet despite adding a world class striker.
We also don't really need him dropping deep as we have Bruno for than. Apart from Rashford and Garnacho who is he playing the ball to? Antony, Sancho and Bruno who all can't finish their dinner. Don't see how that helps us that much.
Surely for the people who don't believe his age is an issue doesn't it make more sense to get him when his contract ends. That way we can save £100m and use it on the many other positions we need reinforcements in.
If we had Courtois we'd have 20-25 more points.
See how easy it is to make up stuff.
There are no strikers at that price that wouldn't be a huge risk
The point being, some of us here speculate about future peak years of players as if we have all the detail of analyzed performance report to make a proper educated guess.
I at least based my argument on how City not shy extend Kyke Walker, John Stones, Kevin De Bruyne extend their player contract to when they're 33/34 year of age, well in advance. Kane who would be very stupid to not ask similar term. When City sign a key player, or retain a key player, the way they run looks to be based on data the driven. Do you believe City just plan to sign Kane back then to aim for 3 year peak max which ended next season?
So the question remain, what you guys base your foresight on when saying that Kane would only have 2 peak year left in him, and if he's given 4 year contract now, by 34 it would be a mistake, as to the post I responded to?
Ten Hag did spend the majority of last summer chasing a player that wasn't exactly desperate/keen to join us though.
Except no. We are the 3rd in goals conceded. We however are 9th in goals scored, Fulham and Brentford have scored more goals. We've had bottom tier CF play all season, if you don't think putting Kane in there wouldn't mean 20-30 more goals and turn some draws into wins and some losses into draw/wins then not sure what to say
Look at Kane compared to our forwards on this
First and foremost Levy is a businessman, he will not accept a prized asset leaving for free, and especially if there is no desire to extend on the player's part.
Any offers that come in this summer north of £85m for Kane then Levy will be making a simple business decision.
Any offers that come in this summer north of £85m for Kane then Levy will be making a simple business decision.
He stands to make a feckton more money if he stays at Spurs an extra season and doesn't sign a new contract. He'd be available on a free so clubs would be willing to offer a far more substantial signing-on fee.
No, we need top players. Actual top players like Kane.
It’s easy to talk about ‘quality young players’ with the benefit of hindsight; look how readily you dismiss Sancho in spite of the obvious acquisition he was at the time. There’s no guarantee, but right now that’s what we need up top. Enter Harry Kane.
Buy Kane and surround him with the likes of Rashford, Bruno, Antony and Garnacho and you’ve plenty of legs around him.
If we do go for Kane this summer I hope it doesn't turn into a drawn out saga. Make an early offer, if it's not accepted make an increased offer but set our limit early. If Spurs don't want to play ball move onto other transfer targets. The last thing we need is a summer like last one where we kept pushing for FDJ then made some late moves for Antony and Casemiro at elevated prices due to our desperation.
I really don't care for the stats because saying we'd have an extra 15-19 points means at worst we're 4 points behind City and at best level with City on points and potentially winning the league.Except no. We are the 3rd in goals conceded. We however are 9th in goals scored, Fulham and Brentford have scored more goals. We've had bottom tier CF play all season, if you don't think putting Kane in there wouldn't mean 20-30 more goals and turn some draws into wins and some losses into draw/wins then not sure what to say
Look at Kane compared to our forwards on this
This means you pretty much believe the difference between us and City is adding Kane which just isn't true. Obviously we'd have more points if Kane was here but no chance its that many.
You genuinely think that with Kane in the side we would have been as good as City this season?
It's surprising to me that after having watched Ronaldo hinder our general play and ability to press all last season in the name of "guaranteed goals", quite so many people are this quick to use the same "guaranteed goals" argument in favour of tying to ourselves to a slowing CF who also in no way suits a side that wants to press aggressively.
There have been years of complaints about our style of play on this forum and I wonder how many of the people who made those complaints are now keen for us to sign Kane, a player who (while unquestionably excellent in his own right) much more closely fits the approach to football I thought we wanted to move away from rather than move towards.
Reading through a Spurs forum a few weeks ago and, while they certainly rightly adore him, their adoration came with qualifications like:
Are these not exactly the sort of red flags we want to avoid? Because they're exactly the sort of ones we walked right into during the Woodward-era.
It's especially worrying given how easy it is to see what they're talking about when you watch Spurs play as (although a much improved player in other areas) Kane has already clearly declined physically from his peak. And that's his starting point as a signing, that physicality is only going to decline more and more over a 3 or 4 year period. I don't doubt that the people who say "he never relied on pace, etc." are right and he will keep scoring goals. But that doesn't mean those weaknesses don't still hurt the team while he is getting those goals.
I'm just so sick of watching us trying to work around and compensate for players who don't really suit the style of football I (and I assume others) want to see us play. When I think of Kane as a signing I immediately sense years of "he gets goals" vs "we can't play like a modern side with him in the team" arguments incoming, like nothing has changed.
There have been years of complaints about our style of play on this forum and I wonder how many of the people who made those complaints are now keen for us to sign Kane, a player who (while unquestionably excellent in his own right) much more closely fits the approach to football I thought we wanted to move away from rather than move towards.
Reading through a Spurs forum a few weeks ago and, while they certainly rightly adore him, their adoration came with qualifications like:
Are these not exactly the sort of red flags we want to avoid? Because they're exactly the sort of ones we walked right into during the Woodward-era.
It's especially worrying given how easy it is to see what they're talking about when you watch Spurs play as (although a much improved player in other areas) Kane has already clearly declined physically from his peak. And that's his starting point as a signing, that physicality is only going to decline more and more over a 3 or 4 year period. I don't doubt that the people who say "he never relied on pace, etc." are right and he will keep scoring goals. But that doesn't mean those weaknesses don't still hurt the team while he is getting those goals.
I'm just so sick of watching us trying to work around and compensate for players who don't really suit the style of football I (and I assume others) want to see us play. When I think of Kane as a signing I immediately sense years of "he gets goals" vs "we can't play like a modern side with him in the team" arguments incoming, like nothing has changed.
Benzema was very fast, and still is very quick. Volume of high intensity work might be lower but he’s still quick.
They have 7 more wins in the league. If you don't think Harry Kane would have helped us then that's your opinion. I however think recent losses like Brighton and West Ham are probably wins and the draw to Spurs would have been a win. That's 1D-2L into potentially 3W. Hypothetically that's City with only 4 more wins. Then you got stuff like the Southampton and Leeds home draws where if you have someone of Kane's caliber and not Wout Weghorst those are wins. So now City hypothetically would have 2 more wins than us. Then there are multiple draws that could be argued if we had someone of Kane's caliber instead of washed Ronaldo or Weghorst a couple of them might have been wins instead of draws.
It's like people ignore how bad our CF play has been ALL season. Ronaldo, Weghorst, Martial. They scored a combined 6 goals in the league and 5 of those were Martial, with 2 being in the last 5 minutes in the 6-3 loss to City and 1 of those was a penalty.
I don't think anyone is saying Harry Kane will be past it January 2026. There isn't a crystal ball or a set of tea leaves saying exactly when he's past prime, just as there isn't one that says that he will perform like Karim Benzema at 34 so which is speculative or which isn't?
It's not about speculation it's about risk and how that is viewed, which is of course subjective and uncertain. Risk isn't always about certain data, in fact it rarely is. So no we don't have a spreadsheet extrapolating Kane's potential decline but we don't need one to say that it matters that we're getting him at age 30 compared to age 28 and that trying to make out that little difference exists betwen ours and City's pursuit of Kane is simply strange. The whole premise is based on your idea that City would have him on a 6 year contract, when the only certainty of data is that he's 2 years older and yet you seem to find more significance in the contract you've come up with in your head compared to the fact they get the benefit of him aged 28-30 and the option to determine what they do into his 30s.
The answer to the latter part is we don't know when he will be in decline, but that a risk exists it may be within the course of the contract he is given and when the transfer costs 80-100 million pounds the risk is not mitigated or constrained in economic terms. That is of course important because it's a completely different situation when he's free or maybe available to a foreign club for a lesser fee.
It actually baffles me to see that Uniteds proud history of big money transfers here is used to justify such a transfer for Kane... You'd think, a lessons could have been learned but it seems it didn't.
Amen to that.
This feels a bit like alternate reality stuff, talking about which game would have had this or that result. Football isn't a game of cards plus all you did with your last sentence is running into open doors - nobody denies that we have to improve our striker department. But that isn't tied to going for Kane.
He is a striker that scores every week in a team that players horrendous football. He is absolutely who we need.
We could get 4-5 years out of him with his style and he is the single best option available to us.
Energy and pace can come from Rashford, Garnacho and our midfield signings.
We could get 4-5 years out of him with his style and he is the single best option available to us.
Energy and pace can come from Rashford, Garnacho and our midfield signings.
If that was true, we wouldn't have chased Frenkie De Jong all summer.
That's not how football tends to work. You can't just assume that one player will turn a quarter of our league games into wins on his own, and that no other result would change if he replaced a player. As @sullydnl pointed out, people pulled the exact same arguments with Ronaldo back in '21: that if we had had him in the previous season, we could have pushed City with his goals. And then he came here, scored 20+ goals and we completely collapsed.
For the opposite example, look at Dortmund: they are about to win the league with more points and a similar amount of goals as last season after losing the world's best striker. Their current top scorer in the league has 9 goals. Well, top scorers, they have three of them.
It's just not that simple.
So what's happening? Is it on? Lie to me and fill my muppet meter with hopium!
When dealing with Levy the muppet meter can never be filled more than a quarter at best. Will all depend on whether Kane’s willing to kick up a fuss in order to force a move.
Bollox.
Except no. We are the 3rd in goals conceded. We however are 9th in goals scored, Fulham and Brentford have scored more goals. We've had bottom tier CF play all season, if you don't think putting Kane in there wouldn't mean 20-30 more goals and turn some draws into wins and some losses into draw/wins then not sure what to say
Look at Kane compared to our forwards on this
id Be going for both kane and Maddison
Hardly. Obviously it’s impossible to put an exact number on how much more goals we would’ve scored with Kane but we’ve massively underperformed our xG this season and Bruno’s been the top big chance creator in the league, so we’d definitely have been a lot better off with a top class finisher upfront.
EDIT: I thought the poster you replied to said goals not points. My bad.
Last edited: