Harry Kane | Bayern Munich player
- Thread starter LawCharltonBest
- Start date
Leaving aside anything else, I find it near impossible to imagine a scenario where Spurs quickly sell Kane to United for a reasonable price.
If this happens, it happens on deadline day and with our pants around our ankles.
would be nice if united went in with an offer of like 65 or maybe 70. Said heres our offer, take it our leave it. Then if Levy wants to Levy we just walk away and move to other targets. Absolutely cannot waste time on a saga while our other options get transferred around
Genuine question - How would we make a huge signing like this with the Glazers still in charge?
It's in the Glazer's interests to keep money in the club ahead of a potential sale or investment
It's in the Glazer's interests to keep money in the club ahead of a potential sale or investment
I would assume there is money for United to do a deal or two with the Glazers still here, but we need clarification on the ownership as a whole to plan out the entire summer. As in, maybe we could make an offer and sign a player like Kane now, but without knowing the ownership situation we don't know what we can do beyond this
Yeah this is exactly the right strategy
Yeah I don't think a major transfer happens before the sale is concluded.
If it drags on through the summer, we'll have a very frustrating transfer window.
Most obviously perfect signing I've seen since RVP. Get it done early. Personally don't think it will take £100m but considering some players we've overpaid for in recent years, this would be one case where the overpaying would 100% be worth it. He might not guarantee a league title (nobody can because City still exists) but he'd make us their closest challengers imo.
Yeah I am very confident he won't be the only signing this summer,just might take a while for us to get going with ownership situation
Spurs would surely want to sort out their replacement(s) for Kane before selling.
They'd be in a shite negotiating position if they sold quickly and then went our to fix their issues.
They'd be in a shite negotiating position if they sold quickly and then went our to fix their issues.
Would be an unreal signing. Really hope it happens.
by same token if they spend decent money bringing in a striker that selling team knows they are trying to replace kane, so not really that much better for their negotiating strength. Then we would know as well that theyve spent decent money bringing in kane's replacement so why would we now overspend for a player they clearly plan on moving on from? They would still have richarlison/son as well if im not mistaken, so would be obvious they wouldnt want to carry richarlison/son/kane replacement/and kane.
Hmm maybe. Although I imagine they'd follow a similar structure to how they spent the Bale money before officially selling. I think it's a good soundbite to put out that we won't be sucked into a drawn out negotiating period.
I think there's a chance Martial ends up at Spurs if Kane heads this way.
Are they actually still interested
Mbappe, Rashford, Kane. Let me dream.
They need Kane's money to rebuild pretty much everything behind that attack. I think they would be fine (as in get top 5/6) if they stuck with Richarlison/Son/Kulusevski next year but spent it all on GK/CB/CM + some rotation option on the wings that are not named Lucas Moura.
Supposed to be interested in him on a free next summer but Madrid are surely favourites
It better not ALL happen, Mason Mount WTF
This will be the 2023 version of De Jong. Think it could happen though but not for a penny less than £100m.
People really disregarding the fact that Kane at Spurs has had a comparable season to Haaland at City. He’s scored in more games, playing for a far worse team.
Certainly not pretending he’s at the same level or owt. Haaland has been phenomenal. But Kane has had a brilliant season.
Certainly not pretending he’s at the same level or owt. Haaland has been phenomenal. But Kane has had a brilliant season.
Kane would score more goals for City than Haaland would for Spurs. That's not to say Kane is better or the same level, but put him in an elite side and he guarantees 30 PL goals a season IMO.
We’ve never seen a team win four PL titles in a row so let’s assume next season delivers a title winner that is not City. Now is the time for it to be us. We need to go all-in this window and signing Kane would be a great start.
If Tottenham have any sense they'll sell him quickly and focus on their new head coach's ideals when it comes to implementing his tactics. And that coach looks to be Arne Slot, who is a excellent coach who develops teams to dominate games. And one player it looks like he will bring to Spurs is Orkun Kokcu, if reports in Holland are anything to go by.
It would be silly of Spurs to drag this out because all they'll be doing is hampering their head coach from developing the team. Unless the plan is to keep Kane and allow him to run his contract down.
It would be silly of Spurs to drag this out because all they'll be doing is hampering their head coach from developing the team. Unless the plan is to keep Kane and allow him to run his contract down.
Great. I can’t wait for another season of pissing around in fourth and fifth while we wait.
Last edited:
He gets us a damn sight closer than we are. And a damn sight closer than we would be with one of those fellas scoring eight goals in Serie A.
Kane is definitely on Haaland’s level for me. Put Kane in that City team and he puts up similar numbers.
Hand on heart, do you think we are able to sign enough players of a high enough quality to challenge next year? I think that’s fantasy.
Unless we spend £30-50 on a keeper, £50m on a right back, £50m on a centre half, £80m on a CM and £80-100 on a CF.
Thats £290-£310m.
We’re then relying on every single one of those players to slot straight in and hit the ground running, AND our existing players to stay fit and in form. For a whole season.
No chance. An identical season to this, with ten additional PL points is probably our best expectation.
Why on earth would we be interested in Mason Mount. That bit alone makes that story not believable
No I don't, but that's the point. Why pay a £100m premium to sign a player who we could sign as a free agent the year following? Use the budget on players who will take us closer and then get Kane as the cherry on top later.
Said this before, but whilst I agree that Kane alone wouldn't win this team the title, I'm pretty sure we would also be on ~80 pts now had we signed him last summer, which would be a title challenge this season, albeit probably not in other seasons where you need ~95 pts to win the Premier League.
And it's not like there's a player out there that would single handedly win us anything, so it's a dumb argument either way. Kane is the best striker we can get, even though he's turning 30 in 2 months. He's likely got 3-4 years left at the highest level.
And it's not like there's a player out there that would single handedly win us anything, so it's a dumb argument either way. Kane is the best striker we can get, even though he's turning 30 in 2 months. He's likely got 3-4 years left at the highest level.
He would indeed.
But accepting we're not winning the league next season regardless, the question is whether he'll be get us closer to a title in the 24/25, 25/26, and 26/27 seasons than other strikers we might sign now will at that point. Because if we're signing a CF to win us things, it's across those seasons they'll be doing it.
We want a world class CF next season. But we need a world class CF in two, three and four seasons' time.
And having to project (and depend on) these various options' level across that period makes it a trickier question. Some posters seem to want us to avoid having to make that projection at all by banking on the certainty of Kane's short term quality, but football doesn't work that way. You need to plan ahead.
If you're spending 80-100m on Kane now, you need to be very confident he'll still be more of a title winning CF in two or three seasons time than any of the younger CFs you could buy instead will be. If he will be, great, sign Kane. If he won't be, you have to ask why you're prioritising season where you're less likely to win things. Either way, what he'll do next season doesn't answer that question either way.
Whilst i would prefer a younger striker. Kane would be like signing RVP all over again. Proven goal scorer in the league and would step up to the challenge of leading the line for Utd. He could be the difference maker in making a title challenge
Or he could y’know, win us a lucky Champions League. It’s far easier to win that the PL for the next two turns.
Get the lad in, he’ll score boatloads of goals, we can buy a red hot number 9 in 3 years.
A season in any way similar to this one and Kane should be sufficient to get us close to a title challenge AND a contender for the CL. In any event, it would be simply astonishing if we signed him and didn’t make top 4, which is the minimum we need to keep signing the players we need.
In order to splash our budget on one of the young strikers now, rather than Kane, you need to be very certain that they are good enough to hit the ground running in the premier league now AND have a reasonable expectation that they will be as good or better than Harry Kane in 2-3 years time. Get it wrong and we are down in 5th/6th this season and losing significant funding, potentially sacking our manager and needing to rebuild again.
Sure, any of god knows how many teams could win a lucky CL. We're presumably aiming for something more than the hope of a fluke season though.
We straight-up can't afford to spend 80-100m on Kane now and then a similar premium price on a replacement CF in 3 years' time. We already have many other issues to deal with at the moment, more issues will emerge across those three years and all of it will have to be addressed under the already chafing financial fair play regulations that (I think I'm right in saying) only get more strict over coming seasons. If that's dead money in three years, we shouldn't be spending it.
Whatever about the CL (which is very luck dependent), I don't think adding Kane to the current team gets us anywhere near as close to a title next season as you seem to. And once we're not actually winning the title next season, how close we finish to the winners is pretty irrelevant compared to where we think we'll be in the following season(s).
All we need for next season is to strengthen enough to be confident of finishing in the top four. Once the CF we sign is of sufficient quality to allow us to do that (in conjunction with other signings), that's fine. At that point how good we project them being in the following season(s) matters an awful lot more, because we will need to be competing at that point.
And given the options we currently have, and the underperformance in front of goal you mentioned in another post, a younger striker doesn't need to hit Kane-like figures in their first season to still improve us quite enormously. Even relatively ordinary strikers like Toney, Watkins and Rodrigo have scored something like 2-3 times the amount of goals all our CFs managed combined this season, improving on them for next season is the lowest hanging fruit.
If City win their remaining two games, they'll finish on 94 points. So even this season you'd need 95 to win the league.
(of course it's possible they'll rest players with the league already won but based on the last half a decade we can safely assume that with a stronger challenger they'd keep going until the very last minute)