Harry Kane | Bayern Munich player

balaks said:
Are you serious? Why should I care about Harry Kane's career? All I care about is my club being successful and we are much more likely to be successful with Kane in the team. Kane has a contract with Spurs and is bound to it until such time as another club meets our valuation or his contract ends. That's how this works. My club is perfectly entitled to work this way and I'm in total support of it.

This is how every other club in the league works as well you know.
Click to expand...

You're obviously right to ridicule the strange attempt to guilt you into wanting Kane to leave, and Spurs are completely entitled to refuse to sell.

As for success though, I'm not sure holding onto Kane for another season before losing him for nothing is more likely to bring success than getting paid for him and being able to reinvest that money. If it's difficult to replace Kane with say £80m that you could get for him now, then it's even more difficult to replace him with £0 next season. Unless there's a genuine expectation that he'll sign on again?
 
The Hilton said:
You're obviously right to ridicule the strange attempt to guilt you into wanting Kane to leave, and Spurs are completely entitled to refuse to sell.

As for success though, I'm not sure holding onto Kane for another season before losing him for nothing is more likely to bring success than getting paid for him and being able to reinvest that money. If it's difficult to replace Kane with say £80m that you could get for him now, then it's even more difficult to replace him with £0 next season. Unless there's a genuine expectation that he'll sign on again?
Click to expand...
I think the club believe there is a chance he will sign another contract - probably not a big chance, but a chance.
 
balaks said:
I think the club believe there is a chance he will sign another contract - probably not a big chance, but a chance.
Click to expand...

I don't see this happening, he's at the tail end of his career so the bonuses he'll be entitled to from a free transfer would be difficult to turn down. If Kane was maybe in his mid 20's I could see him resigning but the play would be to leave on a free for the financial benefits if I was his agent / advisor.
 
Surely Spurs can't afford to let Kane leave on a free? He's literally their only proper saleable asset. Unless he's daft enough to sign another contract, selling him this summer would be key to the massive rebuild required there. They're just kicking the can down a rather inevitable and depressing road at the moment. In total decline, should never have gotten rid of Poch.
 
The Hilton said:
You're obviously right to ridicule the strange attempt to guilt you into wanting Kane to leave, and Spurs are completely entitled to refuse to sell.

As for success though, I'm not sure holding onto Kane for another season before losing him for nothing is more likely to bring success than getting paid for him and being able to reinvest that money. If it's difficult to replace Kane with say £80m that you could get for him now, then it's even more difficult to replace him with £0 next season. Unless there's a genuine expectation that he'll sign on again?
Click to expand...

I’m not “guilting” anyone into wanting Kane to leave.

I’m a supporter of Manchester United and I want the club to do well. However, I would not want that to be through sharp practices or misleading players. If we look at Ronaldo back in 2008/09, Ferguson handled that perfectly. We had a gentlemen’s agreement to let him leave for a sensible fee, and that’s what happened. Whilst we could have reneged on that deal, and kept him for another year, it wouldn’t have been the right thing to do.

Here, we have Levy doing exactly that. Instead of being in any way critical of that behaviour, @balaks seems to be praising it. Screw the fact Kane has been loyal to the club for many years and given @balaks many great moments, “I don’t care about him, just that the club finishes as high up the table next season as possible”.

Fair enough if that’s your attitude but it’s definitely not mine.
 
groovyalbert said:
Surely Spurs can't afford to let Kane leave on a free? He's literally their only proper saleable asset. Unless he's daft enough to sign another contract, selling him this summer would be key to the massive rebuild required there. They're just kicking the can down a rather inevitable and depressing road at the moment. In total decline, should never have gotten rid of Poch.
Click to expand...

Why cant they? They are a Premier League club.. 100m isnt going to make or break Spurs. If Kane his goals qualify Spurs for the CL next season its likely worth keeping him for another year.
 
Doracle said:
I’m not “guilting” anyone into wanting Kane to leave.

I’m a supporter of Manchester United and I want the club to do well. However, I would not want that to be through sharp practices or misleading players. If we look at Ronaldo back in 2008/09, Ferguson handled that perfectly. We had a gentlemen’s agreement to let him leave for a sensible fee, and that’s what happened. Whilst we could have reneged on that deal, and kept him for another year, it wouldn’t have been the right thing to do.

Here, we have Levy doing exactly that. Instead of being in any way critical of that behaviour, @balaks seems to be praising it. Screw the fact Kane has been loyal to the club for many years and given @balaks many great moments, “I don’t care about him, just that the club finishes as high up the table next season as possible”.

Fair enough if that’s your attitude but it’s definitely not mine.
Click to expand...

I don't blame Balaks at all for praising it, and we had plenty of fans who would have been happy for us to do the same with Ronaldo. The club are well within their rights to hold Kane to the contract he signed, and @balaks believes that keeping Kane will be better for Spurs than cashing in on them, and his first loyalty is (and should be) to the club over any individual player.

There's no moral issue with Spurs (or @balaks) here, although I personally think it's a pretty shortsighted approach - holding on to a player who doesn't really want to be there, and likely losing them for nothing, is going to cost them long term when they have to replace him.
 
Stadjer said:
Why cant they? They are a Premier League club.. 100m isnt going to make or break Spurs. If Kane his goals qualify Spurs for the CL next season its likely worth keeping him for another year.
Click to expand...

I think thats a massive gamble on Spurs part honestly. As you say, if they keep Kane and get CL football then its a sensible choice but lets be fair, they aren't in CL this coming season so their recruitment is unlikely to be fantastic and next season will be massively competitive for those 4 spots. Spurs are the least likely to be there out of United, City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and Newcastle. Thats 6 teams I expect to outperform them.

They are far more likely to be in a position where Kane leaves on a free next summer and they are 70m down and not in the CL anyway. I think they would probably be better off banking that money and investing for the future.

Honestly, its probably much of a muchness from Spurs point of view. No good choices and both are complete crap shoots.
 
Stadjer said:
Why cant they? They are a Premier League club.. 100m isnt going to make or break Spurs. If Kane his goals qualify Spurs for the CL next season its likely worth keeping him for another year.
Click to expand...

For the amount of work required, I think there's a good chance they'll need to raise funds somehow from this squad. Kane aside, I genuinely don't know where they make serious money from their current squad.

Having no Europe next season will hit financially/ability to attract, and as this season has proven, Kane's goals alone is not enough to make this Spurs team competitive for any European competition, let alone the CL.

Happy to stick my neck on the line now and say there is no chance of Spurs making top 4 next season. They're out of the conversation now.
 
The Hilton said:
I don't blame Balaks at all for praising it, and we had plenty of fans who would have been happy for us to do the same with Ronaldo. The club are well within their rights to hold Kane to the contract he signed, and @balaks believes that keeping Kane will be better for Spurs than cashing in on them, and his first loyalty is (and should be) to the club over any individual player.

There's no moral issue with Spurs (or @balaks) here, although I personally think it's a pretty shortsighted approach - holding on to a player who doesn't really want to be there, and likely losing them for nothing, is going to cost them long term when they have to replace him.
Click to expand...

Your first point isn’t quite correct. Kane is legally permitted to buy out his contract at this point, and effectively leave on a free. However, from this thread, I understand that he can’t do that in practice because a “gentleman’s agreement” between the main clubs means that no one will then sign him.

Even aside from that, there obviously is a moral point here. Whilst I appreciate that there is potential argument over the exact arrangements in this specific case, both you and Balaks seem to be saying you’d be absolutely fine with a player being lied to, as long as it benefitted the club.

I obviously agree with you on the short-sighted nature of the approach. As this thread indicates, football is a relatively archaic industry which still has a lot of this type of arrangement. If you have a reputation for reneging on them, that can only harm the club.
 
mctrials23 said:
I think thats a massive gamble on Spurs part honestly. As you say, if they keep Kane and get CL football then its a sensible choice but lets be fair, they aren't in CL this coming season so their recruitment is unlikely to be fantastic and next season will be massively competitive for those 4 spots. Spurs are the least likely to be there out of United, City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and Newcastle. Thats 6 teams I expect to outperform them.

They are far more likely to be in a position where Kane leaves on a free next summer and they are 70m down and not in the CL anyway. I think they would probably be better off banking that money and investing for the future.

Honestly, its probably much of a muchness from Spurs point of view. No good choices and both are complete crap shoots.
Click to expand...

It's very likely that there will be 5 spots open to English clubs due to the rule changes for the 24/25 Champions League. I don't see Spurs finishing in the top five next season though.
 
Doracle said:
Your first point isn’t quite correct. Kane is legally permitted to buy out his contract at this point, and effectively leave on a free. However, from this thread, I understand that he can’t do that in practice because a “gentleman’s agreement” between the main clubs means that no one will then sign him.

Even aside from that, there obviously is a moral point here. Whilst I appreciate that there is potential argument over the exact arrangements in this specific case, both you and Balaks seem to be saying you’d be absolutely fine with a player being lied to, as long as it benefitted the club.

I obviously agree with you on the short-sighted nature of the approach. As this thread indicates, football is a relatively archaic industry which still has a lot of this type of arrangement. If you have a reputation for reneging on them, that can only harm the club.
Click to expand...
Daniel Levy did not lie to Harry Kane. Harry Kane was dumb enough to think that HIS view of an acceptable price would be what the club would sell him at. It is Daniel Levy's view on what the acceptable price was. This is very obvious to everybody apart from Kane and his brother apparently.
 
balaks said:
Daniel Levy did not lie to Harry Kane. Harry Kane was dumb enough to think that HIS view of an acceptable price would be what the club would sell him at. It is Daniel Levy's view on what the acceptable price was. This is very obvious to everybody apart from Kane and his brother apparently.
Click to expand...

I would be astonished if the first question out of Kane or his agents mouth after talking about leaving for an "acceptable price" was not "and what is an acceptable price". No one would walk away without getting a ballpark figure for that sort of thing.
 
mctrials23 said:
I would be astonished if the first question out of Kane or his agents mouth after talking about leaving for an "acceptable price" was not "and what is an acceptable price". No one would walk away without getting a ballpark figure for that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Kane's agent is his brother. As I said, very very naive.
 
Doracle said:
Your first point isn’t quite correct. Kane is legally permitted to buy out his contract at this point, and effectively leave on a free. However, from this thread, I understand that he can’t do that in practice because a “gentleman’s agreement” between the main clubs means that no one will then sign him.

Even aside from that, there obviously is a moral point here. Whilst I appreciate that there is potential argument over the exact arrangements in this specific case, both you and Balaks seem to be saying you’d be absolutely fine with a player being lied to, as long as it benefitted the club.

I obviously agree with you on the short-sighted nature of the approach. As this thread indicates, football is a relatively archaic industry which still has a lot of this type of arrangement. If you have a reputation for reneging on them, that can only harm the club.
Click to expand...

It's difficult to accept that you're arguing in good faith when using hyperbole like the bit in bold.

In order to accept that Kane has been lied to, I'd need details about this supposed "gentleman's agreement".

The main failing here is from Kane himself, who stupidly signed an overly long contract in which he failed to include any escape route, despite knowing full well who he was dealing with in Levy.
 
Imagine the Glazers could actually get their finger out, and the new owner would be able to bid significantly for Kane. Probably way too late for that though.
 
Siorac said:
Which is exactly why you shouldn't say things like "he guarantees 20+ league goals a season". He doesn't. Most players don't.
Click to expand...
Playing at the top level, we have stats for some of the top number 9s at their recent club/s:
Benzema: 354 goals in 658 matches. 0.55 goals per game.
Lewandowski: 480 in 608. 0.79
Kane: 280 in 435. 0.64
Messi and Ronaldo managed to deliver even better strike rates, but Kane is up there with the elite strikers in the world. If he can stay reasonably fit and keep delivering over the next five years to age 34 like the other players mentioned, it will be a fantastic purchase. He is without question one of the best in the world. Nothing in life is guaranteed, but Kane scoring goals is about as close as you get.
 
ROFLUTION said:
Imagine the Glazers could actually get their finger out, and the new owner would be able to bid significantly for Kane. Probably way too late for that though.
Click to expand...
It’s not true, the article being referenced above even states that the takeover doesn’t hold that much weight on what we can spend. It’s the new rules brought in last summer that are holding us back and us overspending last summer. If SJ comes in and clears the debt then we’d have around an extra 50mill, and we’d have more if we sell players too of course…. but can we afford to wait around all summer whilst we try to sell players before making a move on big targets?
 
tidraKS said:
How many times have you seen Jonathan David play? He's not even close to being decent.
Click to expand...
Tbh I've never watched him only watched his highlights and heard he scored 24 goals last season. You watch him a lot I guess? He's no good?
 
The Hilton said:
It's difficult to accept that you're arguing in good faith when using hyperbole like the bit in bold.

In order to accept that Kane has been lied to, I'd need details about this supposed "gentleman's agreement".

The main failing here is from Kane himself, who stupidly signed an overly long contract in which he failed to include any escape route, despite knowing full well who he was dealing with in Levy.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe I asserted that Kane was lied to - read the first part of the sentence quoted. I obviously don’t know. My point was that your position seems to be that would be fine if he was, because it only matters what’s in the contract.

My original point I think was that, whatever was actually agreed, Kane clearly interpreted it that he’d be allowed to leave - he, no doubt, feels let down. Even if he was wrong about that, why would anyone think he’s going to sign a new contract when under the belief he was misled?
 
Strelok said:
You're not Levy how would you know if he felt 150m was a 'right' offer or not?
Click to expand...

He'll be 30 by the time next season starts. £100 is way, way over-priced. I'll be very disappointed if we buy him at anywhere close that price.
 
032Devil said:
He'll be 30 by the time next season starts. £100 is way, way over-priced. I'll be very disappointed if we buy him at anywhere close that price.
Click to expand...
I know but that cnut Levy just really really hate us.
 
CantonaManc said:
Who cares about the price when you've got Qatar ? :lol:
Click to expand...
Qatar cannot just give us money to spend that’s not how it works. We can only spend 90% of our revenue. Qatar can’t just say here’s 500 million go out and spend it on whoever you need. The only way we’re going to be able to spend big this summer is if we sell players + combined with wiping the debt to the tune of giving us an extra 50 mill to spend
 
Strelok said:
I know but that cnut Levy just really really hate us.
Click to expand...

That man has made enough out of us. I'd hate to buy Kane out of desperation. Let's look else where for a younger, proven player.

We need to improve our midfield, wing and attack. a player that can contribute 21 goal in a season will be good enough for ETH's second phase. We also need players of real quality in midfield and wing that can contribute goals as well - as in the glorious Ferguson days. If we buy a striker from some where else Levy will know that Spurs have lost a chance to rake in (another) gold chest!
 
L1nk said:
Qatar cannot just give us money to spend that’s not how it works. We can only spend 90% of our revenue. Qatar can’t just say here’s 500 million go out and spend it on whoever you need. The only way we’re going to be able to spend big this summer is if we sell players + combined with wiping the debt to the tune of giving us an extra 50 mill to spend
Click to expand...
I suppose this is a cautionary tale for those people who said "who cares about the transfer fee, it's not our money" when we were blowing our last summer transfer budget on Antony (of all players). Transfer spend in one window has a knock on effect in the next one kids. And given the choice between Kane and Antony, I know which I'd pick.
 
Erik the Red said:
Playing at the top level, we have stats for some of the top number 9s at their recent club/s:
Benzema: 354 goals in 658 matches. 0.55 goals per game.
Lewandowski: 480 in 608. 0.79
Kane: 280 in 435. 0.64
Messi and Ronaldo managed to deliver even better strike rates, but Kane is up there with the elite strikers in the world. If he can stay reasonably fit and keep delivering over the next five years to age 34 like the other players mentioned, it will be a fantastic purchase. He is without question one of the best in the world. Nothing in life is guaranteed, but Kane scoring goals is about as close as you get.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and his stats are in a mediocre Spurs team, not teams that absolutely dominate like Madrid, Barca or Bayern
 
Doracle said:
I don’t believe I asserted that Kane was lied to - read the first part of the sentence quoted. I obviously don’t know. My point was that your position seems to be that would be fine if he was, because it only matters what’s in the contract.

My original point I think was that, whatever was actually agreed, Kane clearly interpreted it that he’d be allowed to leave - he, no doubt, feels let down. Even if he was wrong about that, why would anyone think he’s going to sign a new contract when under the belief he was misled?
Click to expand...

I haven't taken that position, and I don't think @balaks has either.

If Kane was promised he could leave under the circumstances that were present when City were in for him, or that it would be advertised that he could go this summer, then that's obviously underhanded from Levy given that they refused to entertain offers. However, the blame still lies squarely with Kane for being so naive.

As for your final point, I wouldn't expect someone to sign a contract with terms that weren't acceptable to them, so given that he signed a contract with no way out, then I can only assume that his current situation was either acceptable to him or unforeseen, neither of which would suggest that there was an agreement that he could leave, that just happened to be kept out of the actual, legal agreement that he signed.
 
How many clubs are genuinely in for him at Levy valuation? I can't think of any and if Mbappe moves to Madrid then the suitors for Kane will be down to Bayern, PSG, Chelsea and us? With the English record in sight he might prefer to stay in England.

This deal will probably go down towards the end of the transfer window when Levy gets a little desperate to cash in.
 
032Devil said:
Let's look else where for a younger, proven player.
Click to expand...
Problem is there's basically none than Osimhen. And that guy would cost +150m. Imo dealing with Napoli is even harder than with that cnut Levy. At least we know that cnut is greedy. Napoli rarely accept to sell their top players unless it's some really crazy offer.

Just read something about MG, almost forget about him as most here I think. But he'd fit in the 'young and proven' imo.

Anyway according to that article ETH and most of the senior players would welcome him back. Only the women team said no and the marketing guys have some concerns. The important information here is a decision would be made next week. And there is also rumours about the takeover would be done next week. We'll see I think.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.