Harry Kane | "I will be staying at Tottenham this summer and will be 100% focused on helping the team achieve success."

[Zen86]

Yeah, I don't get the idea that Spurs should sell their prize asset at a cut-price deal to a club with literally infinite money just because otherwise poor old Harry will be saaaaddddd.

If it means that much to him, surely he'll be willing to hand in a transfer request to forgo his huge loyal bonus, allowing Spurs to accept a lower price for him as they won't need to pay out to him as well. Oh wait...

The whole thing is comical. You’ve got the oil club on a quest to buy out any and all competition in the league, who have just happily spent £100m on an inferior player they didn’t need. There’s Kane, heroically throwing a tantrum and refusing to play because he just “wants to win trophies before he retires”, and yet won’t hand in a transfer request and otherwise compromise whatever financial payout he might be entitled to. But still, it’s definitely not about money.

And yet Spurs are seemingly portrayed as the money-grabbing villains in this.

 

[romufc]

Yeah, I don't get the idea that Spurs should sell their prize asset at a cut-price deal to a club with literally infinite money just because otherwise poor old Harry will be saaaaddddd.

If it means that much to him, surely he'll be willing to hand in a transfer request to forgo his huge loyal bonus, allowing Spurs to accept a lower price for him as they won't need to pay out to him as well. Oh wait...

This is what I don't get? Why are so many people feeling sorry for him. Oh he has been a good servant so let him go?

Spurs havent said No we are not selling, they have put a price on him, its up to City to pay it.

Last season, it was all about how crap United are in the window because he didn't sign Sancho, not a word from anyone about Dortmund being awkward or anything, its because they set a price and United didn't meet it. Simple as.

If you really want to leave, hand in a transfer request, he is not willing to do that, so he can suck it up really.

 

[GreenFieldsGoldenBarley]

The only place it doesn't matter as you said, is in a courtroom. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't make Kane and his brother any less stupid for being left with little to no leverage, but I just don't believe in giving Levy a pass, he's being a difficult cnut again. Now I'll just leave it at that before I start sounding like Neville.

There is no way that Levy specified a price in this 'gentleman's agreement'. Levy could reasonably say that Kane has been underhand by trying to set his own price at £100m - way below what Levy would ask for - before City had even opened negotiations with Spurs. It's ok for Kane to say that Spurs promised to let him go, but it comes across like he had one idea for how much he should cost and he felt like Levy was just obliged to agree with him, which is stupid and arrogant.

He didn't even come back from holiday to push the thing through! In fact he did the opposite - he sat on his hands in Florida and just seemed to wait for everything to be resolved, then freaked out at his employers.

He's a tit.

 

[RedRonaldo]

If you look at it in a sporting way then yes. However; if you are Levy there are other things to consider here too. He doesn't like to sell to the Pl, we saw that with Modric and Bale.

Also, why would you give someone a discount rate just because the player has been at the club for a long time? Lukaku went for £100m and Grealish too, Kane has better numbers in the prem

I don't think theres huge difference between Kane and Lukaku though over the past 2 seasons. They are scoring similar amount of goals for their clubs, and for their countries in both WC and Euro. If Lukaku only cost Chelsea 100m, Kane shouldn't be more than 120m, as they are at same age too.

 

[romufc]

I don't think theres huge difference between Kane and Lukaku though over the past 2 seasons. They are scoring similar amount of goals for their clubs, and for their countries in both WC and Euro. If Lukaku only cost Chelsea 100m, Kane shouldn't be more than 120m, as they are at same age too.

Does that also mean you dont think there is a difference between the PL and Serie A?

 

[RedRonaldo]

Does that also mean you dont think there is a difference between the PL and Serie A?

Hence I also stated for their country, in both WC and Euro, not much difference there.

 

[ShinjiNinja26]

Thats the puff pieces started now to protect Saint ‘Arry. Can’t imagine the hatchet job they’d be doing if this was Pogba acting like this.

 

[romufc]

Hence I also stated for their country, in both WC and Euro, not much difference there.

I mean there is a clear difference between kane and Lukaku.

Most of Lukakus goals last season came from inside the penalty area, Kane is able to score left foot right foot from outside the box.

Kane is a much better player when it comes to all round play, better hold up play, his passing is probably one of the best for a striker, his crossing is pretty good too.

There is differences imo between Kane and Lukaku.

If you have a poll and ask people who they would rather take Kane or Lukaku, I am pretty certain who would win.

 

[redmeister]

Thats the puff pieces started now to protect Saint ‘Arry. Can’t imagine the hatchet job they’d be doing if this was Pogba acting like this.

I think the key difference is that Pogba has, for many years, played for giants of European football, with a history of winning things. He's won numerous major trophies and though there are always clubs that could offer a better chance of success, he's at least had a shot at the big time. Kane is 28, been one the best players in Europe for several years, yet has only ever played for Spurs and this could be his last shot at the "big time." So, though his behaviour isn't great, I think it's understandable why he gets less of a hard time from the UK media. How many greats of the game don't play for won of Europe's more successful clubs? I think it would be a tragedy not to see what Kane could do in a team with some of the most creative players in Europe. Nearly all the top players get to experience that. Pogba has had it loads, Kane hasn't.

 

[GreenFieldsGoldenBarley]

I mean there is a clear difference between kane and Lukaku.

Most of Lukakus goals last season came from inside the penalty area, Kane is able to score left foot right foot from outside the box.

Kane is a much better player when it comes to all round play, better hold up play, his passing is probably one of the best for a striker, his crossing is pretty good too.

There is differences imo between Kane and Lukaku.

If you have a poll and ask people who they would rather take Kane or Lukaku, I am pretty certain who would win.

Interestingly to me at least, both have a bit of a reputation for underperforming in the biggest games. Finals, big 6 clashes etc. They've got different skillsets and I'd prefer Kane (we've tried Lukaku already after all) but I'm not 100% convinced by either as the striker who's guaranteed to lead his team to trophies right now. I guess Lukaku actually has slightly more credit that Kane in that regard.

If we're going for a £100m+ striker to lead our line for 5+ years and lead us to trophies, the transfer needs to be an absolute guaranteed success, because that player is gonna be the most heavily scrutinised in world football. I'm honestly not sure if either Kane or Lukaku have the right mentality for that.

Now Haaland on the other hand - at 19 he was calling out Lewandowski and Mbappe!

 

[littleman]

The whole line of protecting British but more notably English players runs deep through the entire English media. In general, English players are also deeply overrated by the local media.

This isn't new and our own players like Rooney have benefitted from it.

It's also very uninteresting in general. More interested in where Harry K ends up than the optics.

 

[romufc]

Interestingly to me at least, both have a bit of a reputation for underperforming in the biggest games. Finals, big 6 clashes etc. They've got different skillsets and I'd prefer Kane (we've tried Lukaku already after all) but I'm not 100% convinced by either as the striker who's guaranteed to lead his team to trophies right now. I guess Lukaku actually has slightly more credit that Kane in that regard.

If we're going for a £100m+ striker to lead our line for 5+ years and lead us to trophies, the transfer needs to be an absolute guaranteed success, because that player is gonna be the most heavily scrutinised in world football. I'm honestly not sure if either Kane or Lukaku have the right mentality for that.

Now Haaland on the other hand - at 19 he was calling out Lewandowski and Mbappe!

I get your points, ofcourse spending £100m on a Striker at both their age is ridiculous for us. However; if you are looking at City or Chelsea where they have winners in their team and is like a missing piece, you probably would spend that money.

Kane to me is a much better player than Lukaku. You also have to take into consideration he plays for Spurs, they hardly have a chance to win things, Kane has always been their go to guy.

 

[ThierryHenry14]

Interestingly to me at least, both have a bit of a reputation for underperforming in the biggest games. Finals, big 6 clashes etc. They've got different skillsets and I'd prefer Kane (we've tried Lukaku already after all) but I'm not 100% convinced by either as the striker who's guaranteed to lead his team to trophies right now. I guess Lukaku actually has slightly more credit that Kane in that regard.

If we're going for a £100m+ striker to lead our line for 5+ years and lead us to trophies, the transfer needs to be an absolute guaranteed success, because that player is gonna be the most heavily scrutinised in world football. I'm honestly not sure if either Kane or Lukaku have the right mentality for that.

Now Haaland on the other hand - at 19 he was calling out Lewandowski and Mbappe!

For Kane vs Lukaku, it really depends on the tactic and the coach. For pep it is Kane for slow build up play and Kane's false 9 style, and Lukaku for Conte/Tuchel's 343. The right horse for the course. The transfer fee however is different things, english player tax, length of contract, there are so many variables. Higher transfer fee doesn't mean better player.

 

[Gandalf]

I think the key difference is that Pogba has, for many years, played for giants of European football, with a history of winning things. He's won numerous major trophies and though there are always clubs that could offer a better chance of success, he's at least had a shot at the big time. Kane is 28, been one the best players in Europe for several years, yet has only ever played for Spurs and this could be his last shot at the "big time." So, though his behaviour isn't great, I think it's understandable why he gets less of a hard time from the UK media. How many greats of the game don't play for won of Europe's more successful clubs? I think it would be a tragedy not to see what Kane could do in a team with some of the most creative players in Europe. Nearly all the top players get to experience that. Pogba has had it loads, Kane hasn't.

Whilst that is largely true it does not alter the fact that the current situation is entirely of Kane's making. He signed a 6 year contract without a release clause at a club that hasn't won feck all in decades and now acts surprised that he is stuck at a mid table team. He could have stuck on his original deal and walked on a free by now but he wanted the cash and still wanted control of his destiny and that is just not how it works.

 

[RedRonaldo]

I mean there is a clear difference between kane and Lukaku.

Most of Lukakus goals last season came from inside the penalty area, Kane is able to score left foot right foot from outside the box.

Kane is a much better player when it comes to all round play, better hold up play, his passing is probably one of the best for a striker, his crossing is pretty good too.

There is differences imo between Kane and Lukaku.

If you have a poll and ask people who they would rather take Kane or Lukaku, I am pretty certain who would win.

That's why I rated Kane around 20% more expensive. I just don't think he should be cost 50% more. The difference isn't that huge.

 

[Zen86]

That's why I rated Kane more 20% more expensive. I just don't think he should be cost 50% more. The difference isn't huge.

The difference is Spurs don’t want to sell, coupled with the fact that Kane is the current face of the England team.

 

[Maluco]

Best, most honorable options for Harry Kane…

1. Stay, honor the contract you signed and be a legend at a club you love.

2. Come out and say you want trophies, hand in a transfer request and be honest and up front about how you feel.

3.-

4.-

10. -

20. - Do an sneaky interview with Gary Neville saying you want to leave, miss training, hurt your teammates at the start of the season and leave your club short, brief the press that it’s the club’s fault, not offer any honesty or clarification about the situation, all while being two faced and trying to maintain your, now shattered, reputation as the model pro.

It’s full heel turn by Harry Kane. The lies and lack of any courage or honor or respect for the fans is what pushes it over the top. City is the best place for him.

 

[RedRonaldo]

The difference is Spurs don’t want to sell, coupled with the fact that Kane is the current face of the England team.

Sure Spur could price him out of the market, but I think Kane deserves a move after giving his all for Spur over the years. Reasonable price would be around 120m.

 

[romufc]

That's why I rated Kane around 20% more expensive. I just don't think he should be cost 50% more. The difference isn't that huge.

Yeah I do understand that but also Spurs dont need to sell whereas Inter were in a difficult financial situation.

Secondly, like almost every England player, there is a £20m levy on top as well, we've seen with with alot of players.

 

[Zen86]

Sure Spur could price him out of the market, but I think Kane deserves a move after giving his all for Spur over the years. Reasonable price would be around 120m.

Spurs aren’t pricing him out of the market, City can afford to pay ten times over.

 

[RedRonaldo]

Spurs aren’t pricing him out of the market, City can afford to pay ten times over.

But seriously, other than City, who would entertain the idea of spending 150m on Kane? Basically no one would. Hence Spur is pricing him out of market.

 

[RedRonaldo]

Yeah I do understand that but also Spurs dont need to sell whereas Inter were in a difficult financial situation.

Secondly, like almost every England player, there is a £20m levy on top as well, we've seen with with alot of players.

I still remember during the first few England games in Euro, Kane has been very poor and a lot people saying Kane has past it, not even worth 80m etc.
Sure it could be knee jerk reaction, but I just don't think a 28 year old Kane, with similar scoring stats as Lukaku, should worth that huge amount of money (150m). Especially when we consider Haaland would only cost 75m next summer.

Kane career goal stats (age 28): 275 goals in 462 games - 150m???
Lukaku career goal stats (age 28): 315 goals in 606 games - 100m
Haaland career goal stats (age 21): 138 goals in 185 games - 75m

 

[Escobar]

Best, most honorable options for Harry Kane…

1. Stay, honor the contract you signed and be a legend at a club you love.

2. Come out and say you want trophies, hand in a transfer request and be honest and up front about how you feel.

3.-

4.-

10. -

20. - Do an sneaky interview with Gary Neville saying you want to leave, miss training, hurt your teammates at the start of the season and leave your club short, brief the press that it’s the club’s fault, not offer any honesty or clarification about the situation, all while being two faced and trying to maintain your, now shattered, reputation as the model pro.

It’s full heel turn by Harry Kane. The lies and lack of any courage or honor or respect for the fans is what pushes it over the top. City is the best place for him.

Good points. Basically, anyone who defends Kane or feels sorry for him is an idiot.
It is clear as day that if City want hin, they need to pay up, no matter how sad Kane gets. His antics are disgraceful and any other player would have been slaughtered by the media, and rightly so

 

[Zen86]

But seriously, other than City, who would entertain the idea of spending 150m on Kane? Basically no one would. Hence Spur is pricing him out of market.

Nobody would, but it’s City who want him and City who have the money. No one else bothered because they knew the likely cost.

 

[Pep's Suit]

Reports say Levy refusing to even talk to City so have no idea how this transfer could happen. I still think Kane will stay for another season or two and then eventually join United, maybe Chelsea if it's 2023.

 

[Polar]

City is getting squeezed by Levy He knows City are desperate and in the don’t care if it’s £90, £100 or £120, as long as they get him.

 

[The Cat]

Levy is the master of this it's so funny because we are not involved.

He will hold out for 180m but then eventually sell for north of 140.

 

[RedRonaldo]

Nobody would, but it’s City who want him and City who have the money. No one else bothered because they knew the likely cost.

Its Kane who wants to leave Spur. Regardless of City or not, they shouldn't price him out after all the years of services he has given to the club.

 

[pratyush_utd]

Yes, he shouldn't be vilified. Only non-British players should be targeted.

Slight correction : Only non British United player should be targeted

 

[Suedesi]

This guy is the Harry Kane dicksucker in chief.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

Its Kane who wants to leave Spur. Regardless of City or not, they shouldn't price him out after all the years of services he has given to the club.

He signed a ridiculously long contract, he made his bed, now he can lie in it.

 

[Flytan]

Its Kane who wants to leave Spur. Regardless of City or not, they shouldn't price him out after all the years of services he has given to the club.

If they just spent 100m on grealish, how exactly is he being priced out of a move?

 

[RedRonaldo]

He signed a ridiculously long contract, he made his bed, now he can lie in it.

Would you rather the player trying to run out his contract and leave for free, or extend his contract and hope his club would let him go for reasonable price after giving his all for his club throughout the years?

 

[2 man midfield]

I’m with spurs on this one

 

[Zen86]

Its Kane who wants to leave Spur. Regardless of City or not, they shouldn't price him out after all the years of services he has given to the club.

Lets be honest here, Kane wants a big fat payday, else he’d hand in a transfer request. Spurs are entitled to their payday as well, considering they would rather keep him.

 

[RedRonaldo]

Lets be honest here, Kane wants a big fat payday, else he’d hand in a transfer request. Spurs are entitled to their payday as well, considering they would rather keep him.

If I am being honest, I just think Kane wants to win trophy. There's no hope for him to win one at Spur.

 

[Suedesi]

That's why I rated Kane around 20% more expensive. I just don't think he should be cost 50% more. The difference isn't that huge.

Lukaku had one good season in Italy (which is not anywhere near as good as it was before; see Italian clubs performance in both the CL and Europa) and Kane has pretty much outshone him every year while they both were in the Premier League. Apart from better goalscoring, Kane is much better on the ball, has an eye for a pass and had so many assists to Son last year. He's the real deal. As for Lukaku, the less we talk about his first touch the better. He's a striker than needs the whole team setup a certain way for him to be effective.

As for the record with the national team, Belgium is slightly better than England (at least over the last decade) and Lukaku has been pretty much the spear of an attack with Kevin De Bruyne, Hazard and Mertens feeding him balls, he should be scoring a ton.

 

[Zen86]

If I am being honest, I just think Kane wants to win trophy. There's no hope for him to win one at Spur.

Then he should hand in his transfer request. Oddly enough though, he won’t.

 

[Isotope]

Then he should hand in his transfer request. Oddly enough though, he won’t.

Or simply City to pay the asking price. No one feel pity to United, when needed to fork out 80m to get Maguire, or 55m to a one season PL fullback.

 

[RedRonaldo]

Lukaku had one good season in Italy (which is not anywhere near as good as it was before; see Italian clubs performance in both the CL and Europa) and Kane has pretty much outshone him every year while they both were in the Premier League. Apart from better goalscoring, Kane is much better on the ball, has an eye for a pass and had so many assists to Son last year. He's the real deal. As for Lukaku, the less we talk about his first touch the better. He's a striker than needs the whole team setup a certain way for him to be effective.

As for the record with the national team, Belgium is slightly better than England (at least over the last decade) and Lukaku has been pretty much the spear of an attack with Kevin De Bruyne, Hazard and Mertens feeding him balls, he should be scoring a ton.

I thought they are always among top 3 striker in the league back in PL time, remember at one point they are on race on who get their first 100 goals in PL. Of course I always rate Kane higher. But in recent years, I feel they have been getting at closer level

Club
12-13: Lukaku 17 goals vs Kane 0 goals
13-14: Lukaku 16 goals vs Kane 4 goals
14-15: Lukaku 20 goals vs Kane 31 goals
15-16: Lukaku 25 goals vs Kane 28 goals
16-17: Lukaku 26 goals vs Kane 35 goals
17-18: Lukaku 27 goals vs Kane 41 goals
18-19: Lukaku 15 goals vs Kane 24 goals
19-20: Lukaku 34 goals vs Kane 24 goals
20-21: Lukaku 30 goals vs Kane 31 goals

International
Lukaku 64 goals vs Kane 38 goals