- Joined
- Jul 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,705
I thought it was obvious for 2-3 weeks now that Kane to City is dead. Maybe even more. Probably one of the reasons why City paid Grealish's buy-out clause after offers like £80m+Rogers didn't work.
Haaland is not moving this late in the window.
His transfer won’t be straightforward at all.
If they could have gotten Halaand they would have been in for him this summer imoWonder if this means City try again next summer or go for Haaland.
You may be right but even with all those goals from Kane, where are Spurs last few years? They finished 6th in 2019/20, and then 7th last season, with 0 trophies won, so having Kane didn't change much in that regard. Of course, there is possibility they'd be even lower in table without him but anyways, there's been no success since 2019 UCL final. With right signings (and they have Paratici now), they would've spent that Kane money very well I believe.Completely disagree. People thought the same when Spurs sold Bale and the recruitment that season was terrible and they were clearly far worse despite going with the exact same approach you suggested (even more in fact, I think they brought in 5 players). Kane's irreplaceable, simple as that.
If the player is going to undermine the club then yes. No player is bigger than the club, he's made it publicly known he wants to leave, I would've sold him as soon as City offered the €150m, which is a brilliant fee for Spurs imo.You would rather we just bent over and let the richer clubs get our best players for less than we think they are worth?
feck me Kane over haaalad is not a massive let down. You can keep your opinion but it's just bizarre to me. Kanes output is ridiculous, he's a better player overall. Haaland just has the advantage of age. You could argue Kane is the perfect in between for Greenwood in the long term, without the drama and circus of a dirt bag agent.Which would be a massive let-down, tbh.
I was hoping that City's insistence on being a clear step or two above the 2nd best team in the league would lead them to overpay for Kane.
If the player is going to undermine the club then yes. No player is bigger than the club, he's made it publicly known he wants to leave, I would've sold him as soon as City offered the €150m, which is a brilliant fee for Spurs imo.
£100m for a 29 year old Harry Kane with a history of ankle issues will be a lot less appealing, that for sure. Missing out on this window narrows the market massively. But someone will pay it, probably. There aren’t enough top strikers to go around.Wonder if this means City try again next summer or go for Haaland.
I agree to be honest. If Lukaku is worth £100 million then Kane is easily worth an addition £50 million if not double!It's not a brilliant fee at all considering Grealish was signed for £100 million (only around £28 million less than the 150million euros they supposedly bid) - Kane is one of the top 3 strikers in world football. Levy wasn't even going to pick up the phone for an offer less than £150 million and he was completely right.
Knew someone would bring Pogba into it.Always knew these nasty rumours about him wanting to leave were wrong. Captain. Leader. Loyal legend.
Pogba should take notes on how to show public commitment instead of letting his agent do the talking.
feck me Kane over haaalad is not a massive let down. You can keep your opinion but it's just bizarre to me. Kanes output is ridiculous, he's a better player overall. Haaland just has the advantage of age. You could argue Kane is the perfect in between for Greenwood in the long term, without the drama and circus of a dirt bag agent.
They cant replace, but they could rebuild. Get 3 or 4 players in and start again, they are unlikely to get top 4 with Kane imho, so a good time to do it. Of course having €150M in the bank would inflate prices... oh well... Harry can just go for individual awards now.All came down to there being no way of Spurs replacing Kane imo. Even with £150m or more.
Remains to be seen if being forced to stay effects his game and what happens in next few years regarding a move.
Was white text really necessary? I probably don't read the United forum section enough if a post like that is written with a straight face.Knew someone would bring Pogba into it.
Age means less if the player is likely keen on moving to a new challenge after 3-4 years anyway. You would still have the issue of Greenwood to contend with, because Im sure he sees himself as the 9 after 3-4 years.Age is pretty important, though. Haaland is 7 years younger than Kane and is already world class. I reckon him and Mbappe are the new superstars for the next 10 years.
Kane will be 29 years old next year and he'll still probably cost more than 100 million. I wouldn't be opposed to the transfer as he could be another RVP(albeit way more expensive). But I would definitely prefer Haaland, even if he costs more.
Never heard so much guff in all my days.Completely disagree. People thought the same when Spurs sold Bale and the recruitment that season was terrible and they were clearly far worse despite going with the exact same approach you suggested (even more in fact, I think they brought in 5 players). Kane's irreplaceable, simple as that.
Levy is walking around his office strutting like Ric Flair.
Woooooooo
oof.
Will finish his career with a League Cup if he is lucky.
Well done 'arry.
Was white text really necessary? I probably don't read the United forum section enough if a post like that is written with a straight face.
Hard to say but next summer City will have to finally replace Fernandinho and very likely one of Laporte/Ake will leave plus also at least one of Sterling/Torres/Jesus/Mahrez. So maybe three important signings + ST next summer, that's hardly ideal.Wonder if this means City try again next summer or go for Haaland.
Then we will probably get Kane.
You seem genuinely annoyed that Kane didn't leave Spurs to strengthen one of your direct rivals.
You've missed.Was white text really necessary? I probably don't read the United forum section enough if a post like that is written with a straight face.