Everybody knows that it's a joke.
Harry Kane | "I will be staying at Tottenham this summer and will be 100% focused on helping the team achieve success."
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Next week doesn't leave us enough time to sign the number of players we need - for the good of the club it needs dealt with one way or the other this week.
Isn't this getting a bit late in the transfer window for Spurs? Surely they would want to reinvest the Kane fee in 2-3 really strong additions to the squad to compensate, but the further we go in the window, the more difficult it will be to find these players. Maybe they are already working behind the scenes on this, but going into the season without Kane and having reinvested would be horrible for them.
I suspect we have several deals lined up ready to go just waiting for the button to be pushed.
What's the point of it then?
Who are Spurs getting as their Kane replacement? Any names? The lad at Inter has already rejected them. Hijacking Tammy Abraham isn't a bad shout
Anything above £125-130m Spurs should take the deal and reinvest. If they fighting for the league then obviously don’t make a deal but if you don’t sell him this year there is a chance he moves next year for £40-50m less. You will not win any trophies and you will down £40-50m in 12 months.
Some talk about Vlahovic from Fiorentina and Martinez as you said from Inter - if we sell Kane we need to buy two strikers. We also need another central defender, probably a central midfielder and a right back.
The game is gone when the financial fair play is powerless to prevent this type of travesty. Football in England and in Europe needs a careful rethink.
Is there a chance he'll stay after all? If City somehow can't pull this through, I can't see anybody else pursuing Kane for the price being mentioned. Chelsea should've gone for him IMO (maybe they did and Harry didn't want them?), but other than that surely nobody is paying 120+m for him (PSG are stacked)?
Well Ibrahimovic didn't last long and Messi was still at an age where if his manager told him to run, he would run. Other than Lewandowski the rest were all mobile, well rounded forwards masquerading as strikers.
Maybe Grealish and Kane coincides with Pep moving to a more direct style of play. That's the only way i see this transfer really working. Neither of them fit the pass to the byline and cut back style City have played over the last years.
To punish smaller clubs.
Most clubs that get penalised about this are mid/lower table PL clubs or Championship clubs.
State backed clubs won't get punished. Everyone goes on about FFP as if it actually exists for these clubs.
It was one of the Sky sports people who actually said, FFP is irrelevant if you have the best lawyers and City, PSG have the best lawyers, they find the loophole and exploit it.
It appears City still think they can get him on the cheap, they are really leaving Harry pissing in the wind here.
Any team worrying about balancing the books can't afford a player like Kane. He will cost well over £150 million including agent fees etc - add to that £350-400.000 a week. So over 5 years he will cost £250 million - and his value will at best be £15-20 million afterwards (as he will be 33 years old). Would Kane give United a big chance at the title ? Yes - but we have to think about the future as well - not just a title here and now.
Haaland for £150 million is different - his value will still be extremely high in 5 years - so that can be considered an investment.
If Levy doesn't sell
For me personally Harry hasn't done enough publicly to get this move to city. Put in a formal transfer request, make it known you have. So what if you lose £18mil in "loyalty" payments, City will pay you that back.
Also just be a cnut and refuse to train or play in matches. You want a divorce from spurs then you gotta go all out to get away from levy.
Otherwise if this transfer doesnt happen in this window levy can add a hastag to his social media on Twitter or whatever he may use;
#HarryKaneMyBit*hForLife
Last edited:
It's just ridiculous.
They’ll pay up. It’ll be around 150m with add-ons.
250M in a single window, just after covid. And coming from winning the league, wow.
At this point i'm hollow to it all. City should be winning every competition, every year. Whenever they don't it should be seen as a huge failure.
Nobody barely bat an eyelid when they won the league last year, the press hardly cared either.
They can buy their way to the league every year if they want, it'll just introduce spending caps sooner rather than later. Football won't ever be the same with PSG/City's spending after COVID, things will change.
Nobody barely bat an eyelid when they won the league last year, the press hardly cared either.
They can buy their way to the league every year if they want, it'll just introduce spending caps sooner rather than later. Football won't ever be the same with PSG/City's spending after COVID, things will change.
Yeah they'll pay and he'll go. Money is not a problem for City
Yeah but net spend.
£97,5mill for Lukaku, or something around that. I can easily see why Tottenham wants a much higher fee for Kane.
CIty need to stop posturing and trying to appear to drive a hard bargain. Everyone knows they will eventually pay up and get the player they want
The word is that we have set a deadline of noon today so we should know either way soon.
Titles won't be stripped, neither will points be deducted. A fine? Sure.
A 500k fine.
Totally agree. Honestly, I don't know why FFP exists. I don't see the point. Look how City mugged off UEFA's FFP investigation, basically by just refusing to cooperate.
To be honest, while I have no love for the Stockport sky blues, I'm quite happy City won their FFP case against UEFA. It blew up the charade and will hopefully help us see the back of FFP.
FFP was brought in at the behest of the big clubs who don't want to see another City, another Chelsea or another Leicester. They hate the idea of foreign billionaires coming in and making something of small clubs. However, as you say, because those billionaires are richer than Midas all that happens is it ends up with clubs down the pyramid getting absolutely battered.
Clubs in the Championship and lower down, who can't afford the best sports lawyers money can buy, end up having the screws turned on them. Usually when they're at their lowest ebb. The way it works is perverse IMO.
That sounds like posturing. Were City to come through with £150m on deadline day Spurs will take it.
Now its being reported that Spurs and City are talking I think a deal is more likely than not. However, still doesn't change the fact that Kane could have and should have handled this a bit better.
It's just a name now FFP. It is clear to see how it works, the top level of football is so corrupt as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if the rule makers are out socialising and in the ear of the top lawyers for these clubs.
You don't have to look much further than Qatar world cup bid and the events since then, no regard for human life, climate or anything, yet the Qatari sports minister is there unveiling Messi and no one bats an eye lid.
I'm confused - are you saying it's good or bad for football that billionaires can turn nothing clubs into giants simply by pumping money into them?
I agree that the big clubs have an agenda in supporting FFP, but that doesn't make it wrong or unnecessary in principle.
I am saying its a fact of life.
In a general sense I am not sure how it makes football worse than it would otherwise be either. Its just another vested interest to go alongside the major sportswear companies, advertisers, broadcasters and streamers.
If X person, say Roman Abramovich, buys Y football club. Why should he not be able to put his money into that club? Also, as @romufc points out, they get around this stuff easily anyway. Etihad supposedly pumps money into Manchester City via sponsorships and we're meant to believe that's completely independent of Abu Dhabi's interest in City. Yeah, right...
There is no punishment that FFP can provide that is greater than to risk going out of business. That risk exists with or without FFP. As I said I find it a bit perverse that when a club finds itself at a low ebb, it can also find itself smacked with FFP sanctions as well as the real prospect of going into administration.
One minute it sounds like it's happening, the next we hear City still aren't getting anywhere near the figure it will take for Spurs to sell.
What's making things awkward for Spurs though is that their #1 target(Vlahovic) now has Atletico all over him, so they need to act fast if they're to have a chance of getting him. At the moment I think it's 70/30 Kane goes.
What's making things awkward for Spurs though is that their #1 target(Vlahovic) now has Atletico all over him, so they need to act fast if they're to have a chance of getting him. At the moment I think it's 70/30 Kane goes.
Barring some sort of level playing ground, then it's good that "nothing" clubs can be elevated to a point where they can challenge the traditional big clubs.
Of course it's wrong and unnecessary. Ever heard of a monopoly?
My problem with PSG and City isn’t the money but rather the source of the money and the purpose of the “investment”. It’s a very cynical use of our sport and it is wrong.
The investment is guaranteed to lose in financial terms but they are happy to spend hundreds of millions for the association with top level professional excellence and the reputational benefits that come with that association.
Meanwhile their regimes engage in barbaric human rights abuses.
So if some tech billionaire wants to buy United and is willing to invest heavily in order to grow the club and make some money then I am all for it. Similarly if he wants to transform Sheffield Wednesday into Champions League winners then that is fine too.
What if North Korea decide they want to buy a football club? I imagine there would be uproar and some way would be found to stop them. Are they really that much different from Abu Dhabi or Qatar in terms of human rights?
Okay so essentially the rich owner thing is a preferable alternative to nothing? Perhaps.
My issue with it is we're seeing clubs like City hoover up 2 or 3 stars for every position, to the point where I can't see beyond them for the title for this and potentially the next few seasons. I can only see that getting worse unless others clubs also get bought by state funded billionaires.
In a league like France other teams will have no chance when PSG are able to field M'Bappe, Messi and Neymar in the same squad (yes I appreciate Lille won it last season...)
Perhaps a wage cap is the answer, yes it's fecked Barcelona but they had been badly run for a long time so if anything perhaps it proves the system works?
Seems like FFP will be scrapped for a new solution, where there will be a salary cap of about 70 % of revenue with a "luxury tax" if you go over, eventually leading to exclusion from tournaments if you dont reduce wages to under the cap.
I guess this is a simpler set of rules, but the richest clubs will still be able to inflate their sponsorship deals to increase their cap, so not sure how that will be handled …
Source: The Times
I guess this is a simpler set of rules, but the richest clubs will still be able to inflate their sponsorship deals to increase their cap, so not sure how that will be handled …
Source: The Times
A tech billionaire like Steve Jobs who has children working in sweatshops in China making iPhones for less than pennies? Elon Musk who was born into wealth from emerald mines worked during apartheid? Jeff Bezos who inflicts such harsh working conditions that amazon employees can't even take bathroom breaks? You're all for them then?
Yup.
But it is important to remember that Abi Dhabi is still miles ahead of them all.
They still carry out public beheadings. In the streets.
I agree that they are still worse. More curious as to where the line is drawn in terms of what this poster is comfortable with, since their issue was with the purpose of the investment.
1 day before matchday 1
If he moves my fantasy team is ruined