If as expected Pochettino goes to Chelsea, surely Kane would be tempted to join him either next or the following season (on a free).
I think secretly what Levy will be hoping for is that he can sell Harry Kane for a good fee, and then if he has to do that to an English club, which I really think would be a last resort, he'll hope Harry's form falls off a cliff so he can package it as making the deal at the right time.
70 million to Man Utd would surprise me. I don't see that happening. That looks more like a deal for Bayern or some other foreign club, I don't think Levy would see that as compensation for him potentially smashing in goals v Spurs for the next number of years.
Kane is worth more to Spurs for an extra season than £70m that won't cover the cost of a replacement. Even if there was a viable replacement at £70m, he wouldn't be going to Spurs. Offsetting what Kane gives them, especially in these dire times, is nigh on impossible unless they stumble into a miracle player who goes stellar.He will make an example of Kane by looking like an utter fool when Kane leaves for free next summer? His ego won’t be able to take that.
He will get £70m or so for Kane this summer and portray himself as a hard negotiator, putting all the blame on Kane wanting to leave for not getting more. It’s the only way he saves face.
That's the ideal, I'd just put money on him going in the other direction and doubling down, personally.Though I believe this to be true I also think he's backed into a corner hes never been in before. A club legend, historic goalscorer falling out with the CEO again, the risk of losing him for free to a London rival and of course 70-80m transfer fee would probably make him accept that the best move is to sell now.
They got an equity injection last season to afford transfers and now the haven’t got CL money next year. Levy cannot let Kane go on a free especially when he wouldn’t have the power to decide where he goes next year. He could go to Newcastle and freeze Spurs out of the top 4 for the next 2/3 seasonKane is worth more to Spurs for an extra season than £70m that won't cover the cost of a replacement. Even if there was a viable replacement at £70m, he wouldn't be going to Spurs. Offsetting what Kane gives them, especially in these dire times, is nigh on impossible unless they stumble into a miracle player who goes stellar.
Levy staving off bids and then claiming the higher ground is a lot more feasible than him being reasonable, especially with us.
That's the ideal, I'd just put money on him going in the other direction and doubling down, personally.
When has he ever yielded and let a good player go for a "fair" price, let alone do so with his crown jewel? Couple it with his ego and well-known shithousery in previous transfer windows and it just doesn't bode well he'll suddenly change his tune, even in the face of unprecedented criticism.
If he is open to what you say, I think the tone of the thread would change quite a bit.
But is your assumption that the supposed £70m is assured to do them better next season than keeping a Kane who gives them their best possible chance of achieving top 4?They got an equity injection last season to afford transfers and now the haven’t got CL money next year. Levy cannot let Kane go on a free especially when he wouldn’t have the power to decide where he goes next year. He could go to Newcastle and freeze Spurs out of the top 4 for the next 2/3 season
I really rate him, but man... really dislike (no hate) seeing his smug face.
Would prefer to sign his partner Son, then move Rashford to striker. I think it would be better to the team overall.
Only thing that gives them an edge is the amount they would be willing to spend (hopefully).
The idea of paying north of 70m for a striker who will be 30 next season and seems to have lost a yard seems pretty risky to me.
It’s all going to come down to Harry kane this. If he says to levy, let me go, I want to leave, take the money or I will leave for free next year, under no circumstance am I going to sign a contract.. levy will have to either lose him for nothing and keep a unsettled Harry kane or sell him. I think it would result in the latter. Levy is going to use emotional tactics such as the statue to keep him there, so ultimately it boils down to kanes ambition. I’m not sure he has the balls to do it.
But is your assumption that the supposed £70m is assured to do them better next season than keeping a Kane who gives them their best possible chance of achieving top 4?
£70m doesn’t get you an elite striker these days, and normally wouldn’t get you a player of Kane’s quality in any other season. I don’t think it gets you Kane from them this season, either.
There may be an opportunity to sell abroad which avoids him banging in goals versus Spurs or directly making us a much better team. Even if it is for less than 70 million I could see Levy convincing himself that this is a better thing than taking substantially more from ourselves. I don't think he views this one like selling us Michael Carrick or Berbatov. There is so much history with Kane as a product and face of the club and I think it's going to be really hard for him to sell to us. Unless it's bonkers money to compensate for it and I'm not sure 70 million will represent that in his mind.It’s £70m compensation for one year of this, as he loses him for free the year after anyway. The question is what is Harry Kane worth to Spurs for one season and the pure economics answer is a lot less than £70m. The reason that they will get that fee is because he is worth more for another club over the next 5-6 years and clubs won’t want to wait a year to risk the mad scramble for him on a free.
Is he on the market? a player on the market with 1 year left at 30 years age on the market does not go for 100m. The reason of that price is because he is not on the market.
If you said 60m, then its a no brainer.
Which finals did he drag spurs to? The CL final which they got to without him? He was injured for the quarter and semis, that isnt dragging a team to a final.
Even for England in tournaments, he hasn't had good games, he scored penalties but in open play and general play, he has been quite poor for England.
I mean Bale is what you class as WC and he single handedly dragged Spurs to CL places and done his bit in CL.
You are acting as if signing a player from the PL is guaranteed to play well? in the last 10 years we have seen that to be a myth.. Alexis Sanchez, Harry Maguire, Matic were all signed from the PL.
Signing a player for 100m is a massive risk.
It can happen but that's generally when a player moves from a mid/lower table club to a bigger one - Maguire (who was always a dumb signing) and Schneiderlin for example. That doesn't really apply to Kane. The risk with Kane is that he has a sharp decline like Sanchez and Matic. I don't think that's likely, as has been discussed extensively here, he's never been an all-action explosive kind of player.You are acting as if signing a player from the PL is guaranteed to play well? in the last 10 years we have seen that to be a myth.. Alexis Sanchez, Harry Maguire, Matic were all signed from the PL.
He's not really on the market though, unless you want to pay a ridiculous premium.
The bolded part is only something to consider if you're paying the same price, for the same profile. Obviously if you haven't played in the league it's a risk, but that doesn't mean you just over pay for someone who has. Isak has come in and scored 10 goals pretty easily from la liga - despite being out most of the season for 70M euros. You're not going to have much of an objective discussion if you pin everything on them having played and well in the league.
Not sure why anyone would have a question mark over him.
Nothing in football is guaranteed, but Harry Kane hitting 20+ goals and assists is as close as it comes.
Replace ronaldo, martial and weghorst with that and we are a dozen or more points further on in the league.
I just think keeping him this summer hoping he gets top 4 next year but losing 70/80m in the process is a push. They can sell him now without CL, invest it into a replacement and (in Levy’s eyes) hopefully get top 4 next season so they come out with a big profit.But is your assumption that the supposed £70m is assured to do them better next season than keeping a Kane who gives them their best possible chance of achieving top 4?
£70m doesn’t get you an elite striker these days, and normally wouldn’t get you a player of Kane’s quality in any other season. I don’t think it gets you Kane from them this season, either.
If he makes it clear he won't sign a new contract they'll sell. Kane will have a say in where he goes and won't just blindly move to the highest bidder. There's talk he doesn't want to go abroad because he wants the PL goal scoring record. I suspect Spurs wouldn't sell to Chelsea, who seem to be the only other likely bidder - especially if Poch joins. United have made strides this year and I suspect are a more attractive option than they were. I obviously know no more than anyone else, but there's a reasonable chance that this could happen.
People keep talking about "overpaying" when Chelsea are paying £100 million for the likes of Mudryk, and Osimhen (who looks a decent player) is touted at £120 million plus now PSG are interested.
Clearly, if Spurs demand a huge fee, any buyer will leverage the fact that he's out of contract next year. He can leverage that too, by having a say in where he goes, his threat being to run down his contract and walk. If he goes, there's a good chance a buyer won't have to pay more than he's worth.
And I'm not pinning everything on a player having payed well in the league. The alternatives to Kane, when all comes to all, are younger, but lack PL (and likely CL and international) experience and are likely to cost more than him. He's objectively less risky because he's a known quantity with a proven track record, in my opinion.
So we should never have signed Casemiro, Varane or Eriksen?For all his goals, it does scream risk.
It feels a little bit like a Woodward buy. Maximum boasting and exposure - England captain etc.
But with the risk of an immediate drop at any stage.
But we need to be buying these players at 23-25, not at 30+
What you said is like describing Kane as Weghorst with goal. You completely disregard the possibility of different outcome of result from having better performance.
Games like Leeds home, Liverpool and Newcastle, Weghorst were especially bad. The issue is not only about not scoring, but also about him failing tactically. In these three games, ETH tried weird formation to shoehorn Weghorst into the team with negative effect. Against Leeds at home, it was Rashford on the right, where Rashford up top would easily deal serious blow to Leeds high defensive line and they don't know how to defend different. I took 0-2 before Weghorst was taken off and Rashford was moved up top. Against Liverpool, Bruno was moved to the left and couldn't influence the game. Weghorst played as no 10 which he offered nothing before coming off after Liverpool went up 3-0 which pretty got the game in bag. Against Newcastle, McTominay with his scoring form for Scotland was put in no 10 position in hope that he may score. Sabitzer with Bruno playing deep was outfought, while McTominay and Weghorst posed no threat to Newcastle defense.
If we have Kane and set up with Kane up top, Rashford on the left to exploit TAA defensive zone, Bruno in his natural position, we might have played better overall, and likely scored before Liverpool could get their way and killed the game. There is every chance we didn't lose by that scoreline. Even getting a point, or a victory if Kane was clinical in place of Rashford that game. He didn't need tap in chance to score as we see how he navigate to score goal from opening further up the pitch in Tottenham Newcastle game. Newcastle got the second goal when ETH got desperate and made questionable change at the back which allowed them opening to kill the game. If we have a proper CF, and someone who is known to be a playmaker too, we may have prevented that situation, to get at least one point.
Then we have game like Crystal Palace away, Southampton at home where Weghorst receive chance where someone like Kane might have scored. Sancho would have been subbed off after Casemiro sent off instead of leaving a non performing player on because there was a worse player in Weghorst needed to leave for McTominay. It's not only about scoring. It's also the level of control when you pose a bigger threat to opposition. Playing Weghorst most of the time have the opposite effect on us.
2 point extra here and 1 extra point there, if you add up, we have 8 extra point (2 from Leeds, 2 from Crystal Palace, 2 from Southampton, 1 from Newcastle, 1 from Liverpool. And I am not counting the Arsenal potential one extra point), we're back to 3 point behind Man City!!! May not be enough for us to win the title in the end, but that margin is enough to put us a title challenge which is higher than anything we had been post SAF. Further fine tuning and improve result the whole season and we're talking about winning the title.
Given he wants to stay in England to break the record f there are very few options if any. Arsenal and Chelsea are unlikely as he may not want to break his relationship with Tottenham.Say Kane does run down his contract. Does that put any potential destinations on the table for him next year that wouldn't be available this year?
Presumably we would no longer be an option at that point, as there's zero chance we go another year without a first choice striker. So if it happened, where would his most likely destination be?
Our attack needs a sure thing though, all our forwards are young. People frowning at his age forget all our forwards are young and we suffer for it. We can afford to buy a 29/30 year old forward to add maturity to that area of the pitchFor all his goals, it does scream risk.
It feels a little bit like a Woodward buy. Maximum boasting and exposure - England captain etc.
But with the risk of an immediate drop at any stage.
But we need to be buying these players at 23-25, not at 30+
Our attack needs a sure thing though, all our forwards are young. People frowning at his age forget all our forwards are young and we suffer for it. We can afford to buy a 29/30 year old forward to add maturity to that area of the pitch
Its in midfield you want to be bringing the age down, and in defense if we're getting a Maguire replacement.
Casemiro was a special case and a very risky buy, we went for him as we desperately needed experience and quality in the midfield, but it was and still is a big gamble to pay so much for a player arguably past his peak. It worked out because he seamlessly adapted to the team, but there were a lot of question marks over this transfer - after all we went for him very late in the summer, having missed out on our main target. The fact he's been a success so far by no means suggests we shouldn't be worried about overpaying for older players, for every Casemiro there's more than one Alexis Sanchez.So we should never have signed Casemiro, Varane or Eriksen?
Between the next two summer windows we could sign.Normally I would agree, but this very much feels like the type of signing we should make if it's the last piece of the jigsaw. Like when we signed RvP.
There's still too much missing in the team for this signing to push us into title contention, at least that's what I think. That might change depending on who else we sign, but if Kane turns out to be the only first teamer we bring in then I'm not sure it's worth it.
In a few years the spine of the team will all be over 30 and we'll need to replace them all at the same time.
Say Kane does run down his contract. Does that put any potential destinations on the table for him next year that wouldn't be available this year?
Presumably we would no longer be an option at that point, as there's zero chance we go another year without a first choice striker. So if it happened, where would his most likely destination be?
“Smug” “vacant” ? ….in fact he’s got a brilliant footballing brain, doesn’t miss a trick. I’d say one of the smartest in the prem.I wouldn't say it's smug. More vacant / lights on but no-one at home.
But then he can't help it, so probably a bit harsh.
I didn't say we would be at the top. I said we likely have 8 extra point which put us 3 point behind City right now. 59+8 = 67. City is on 70 now. Both team had played same amount of games. 8 point behind Arsenal with 2 games in hand.I’m not going to go through this point by point, but I will only say here that had we brought in Kane in January that’s it’s extremely unlikely that we’d be at the top of the table today.
When I have the chance later today I’ll go through our fixture list and do the math under the assumption that we hadn’t dropped a single point since January 1 and make the corresponding adjustment to Arsenal’s points total under the assumption we had beaten them rather than they beating us. I’ll come back here and report my finding.
United should never be a team that buys players with any emphasis on resale valueWe really should stay away. No resale value, might give us couple of good seasons before we are looking towards the future, big salary so wont be easy selling him at that age. For free or 20-30mn its not a bad signing but with £100m price being thrown around, we should definitely stay away.
Such a signing has been a trend in recent years (cavani, zlatan, ronaldo, sanchez) and its not surprising in a year or two we keep coming back to this issue. Martial needs to go and we need 2 strikers to build towards the future.
My view entirely.
The critics seem not to want to put forward an alternative who's seemingly less of a risk. A potential buyer holds significant leverage here, and Kane will have a big say in where he goes. Spurs will not let him walk for free.
I didn't say we would be at the top. I said we likely have 8 extra point which put us 3 point behind City right now. 59+8 = 67. City is on 70 now. Both team had played same amount of games. 8 point behind Arsenal with 2 games in hand.
That 8 points came from: 2 extra from Leeds at home, 2 extra Crystal Palace, 2 extra from Southampton home, 1 point from Newcastle, 1 from either Liverpool or Arsenal away is good.
The point being that you seems to think that Kane only getting some goals in Liverpool game and still conceding 7 with Kane in place of Weghorst, as if Kane is just Weghorst that can score goal. Kane would allow Rashford to play on the left that game, Bruno in no 10. ETH was slow to react because when Weghorst left the pitch we're already 3 goal down, and the team collapsed. In that game we had chances to score at 0-0 despite playing that badly. If we scored first it would change the dynamic of that game.
Similar thing can happen with Newcastle, and Leeds where Weghorst needed to leave to pitch after we're goals down. We're talking about Weghorst being a hinderance to the team and we play like a player down losing key battle on the pitch.
Normally I would agree, but this very much feels like the type of signing we should make if it's the last piece of the jigsaw. Like when we signed RvP.
There's still too much missing in the team for this signing to push us into title contention, at least that's what I think. That might change depending on who else we sign, but if Kane turns out to be the only first teamer we bring in then I'm not sure it's worth it.
In a few years the spine of the team will all be over 30 and we'll need to replace them all at the same time.
