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

Harry Kane just does not make sense for any club except those flush with money and no regard for losses due to his age and lack of sell-on value. United already have Cavani and by the time he leaves Kane will be 29 years of age with only a few years at his peak left.

Say he's purchased at 120 Million: He basically has 4 years at the very top which would be 30 Million a year in transfer fees, and a salary of say 400k a week which equates to 20 Million. It would end up costing 1 Million a week to any purchasing club. This is Messi level money who is getting Barcelona in financial difficulties.
 
Spurs will sell if there is a decent bid. All this posturing by the club is to get the best deal possible. Players are a commodity for clubs and any decent business model will tell you there is always a price. It's only the fans who are emotionally challenged.
 
Sultan said:
Harry Kane just does not make sense for any club except those flush with money and no regard for losses due to his age and lack of sell-on value. United already have Cavani and by the time he leaves Kane will be 29 years of age with only a few years at his peak left.

Say he's purchased at 120 Million: He basically has 4 years at the very top which would be 30 Million a year in transfer fees, and a salary of say 400k a week which equates to 20 Million. It would end up costing 1 Million a week to any purchasing club. This is Messi level money who is getting Barcelona in financial difficulties.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I would love to see Kane in United colours but if it was up to me I wouldn't buy him. Just too much money for his age and considering the doubts over his injury record (past and potential) it just strikes me as bad business. Fantastic player no doubt but for that money we would be expecting him to complete the transition into trophy winners again, anything less would just be ego massaging and financial stupidity.

Totally Kanes fault for signing his life away, that was a really stupid move on his behalf.
 
Sultan said:
Spurs will sell if there is a decent bid. All this posturing by the club is to get the best deal possible. Players are a commodity for clubs and any decent business model will tell you there is always a price. It's only the fans who are emotionally challenged.
Click to expand...
Fully agree. Makes no sense to keep a player who wants to leave. Best thing Spurs can do now is agree a deal as soon as possible with City and ensure they get as much as they can. Then they have 4 weeks left to get replacements in. Cant see any City players wanting to be part of a swap deal
 
red4ever 79 said:
Fully agree. Makes no sense to keep a player who wants to leave. Best thing Spurs can do now is agree a deal as soon as possible with City and ensure they get as much as they can. Then they have 4 weeks left to get replacements in. Cant see any City players wanting to be part of a swap deal
Click to expand...
Spurs flatly refused to sell Modric to Chelsea. They have form.
 
Cases like this prove why Raiola and co. are not parasites but worth every penny they get. If he was Kane’s agent, there is no way that Kane would have been stuck in this long contract (probably underpaid compared to his quality, he should be easily making 400k+/week) without a release clause.
 
Judas said:
Levy is one of the biggest idiots in football to be fair. So many Spurs players end up having to kick up a stink to get out of there.
Click to expand...
Really? He is doing quite well IMO. I don't know how he convinces players like Son to sign a new contract with lower salary than he could get elsewhere. Same with Kane, 6 year contract? Levy is far from idiot.
 
sullydnl said:
Can City actually not afford him and Grealish?

Aside from having bags of money, it's been reported that fairly big name players like Sterling, Mahrez, Bernardo and Laporte are available. I'm not sure who can buy them but if they can sell a few of those then they should generate decent fees.

It's not like Grealish represents a massive summer outlay for them on his own.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t mind Laporte in the cheap (40m or so).
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
If City get away with this PL investigation into fraud and are basically given free reign to do as they please with the UAE purse....then Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal need to come out of the shared TV deal and sell our own TV rights. We'd ruin City overnight. Sheikhs and Oligarchs can't be allowed to continue to do what they have done. How many titles have gone to the Russian gangster and Sheikh over the last 10-12 years? The vast majority of them.
Click to expand...
The owners seem to be in good terms with the City owners, can't see it happening. I don't think anyone will pull such drama after the Super League fiasco.
 
Think City will eventually pay 120/130 million and get it done. After spending 220 million this summer he'll just need to buy another couple of 50 million defenders to win CL again
 
In the biggest games of his career, he has failed to turn up.

He has an increasingly concerning injury record. He’s not old but his resale value is limited in 2-3 years.

of all parties he is the one that needs the move the most. He just won’t win against levy though.
 
It might just be my perspective based on what I have seen but I feel like Kane is doing all of this whilst City are not really that bothered one way or another.
 
MUFC OK said:
In the biggest games of his career, he has failed to turn up.

He has an increasingly concerning injury record. He’s not old but his resale value is limited in 2-3 years.

of all parties he is the one that needs the move the most. He just won’t win against levy though.
Click to expand...

City don't really care about resale value at any point.

Why would you even want to sell a 31 year old Kane? the only avenue I can think of is he's flopped due to injuries or something, in which case his value would have tanked anyway.
 
balaks said:
Rumour going around now is that City may offer £140million + Laporte. If this was true I'd be very happy with that.
Click to expand...
This is a 200m bid, essentially. Spurs should accept it if City goes full City.
 
Infra-red said:
Kane and Son have joint ownership of a minibus? Football players are weird.

Actually, Kane & Son sounds like a good name for a minibus business - maybe that's their post-football plan.
Click to expand...
Just watch out for their vans in case it's a front for false whiplash claims.
 
Revan said:
Cases like this prove why Raiola and co. are not parasites but worth every penny they get. If he was Kane’s agent, there is no way that Kane would have been stuck in this long contract.
Click to expand...

Not great of Raiola to have Pogba sign a 5+1 deal at United though, both Pogba and Kane signed six year deals.
 
Revan said:
This is a 200m bid, essentially. Spurs should accept it if City goes full City.
Click to expand...
Spurs'd definitely accept but there's no way Laporte would agree to it - bit like the issue Chelsea have with them wanting to include Zouma in the deal for Kounde but Zouma said no.
 
redshaw said:
Not great of Raiola to have Pogba sign a 5+1 deal at United though, both Pogba and Kane signed six year deals.
Click to expand...
In this case, Pogba's deal expires next year (his original contract) while Kane still has another three years to go.

Under Raiola, Kane would possibly have signed the first six-year contract from 2016 to 2022 but for the second one that was signed in 2018, I can't see him doing another six-year contract. Probably would have said higher wages, still to 2022 or we'll run it out.
 
dove said:
Really? He is doing quite well IMO. I don't know how he convinces players like Son to sign a new contract with lower salary than he could get elsewhere. Same with Kane, 6 year contract? Levy is far from idiot.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, wanker a better word? I don't think it's great how many of Spurs best players end up having to claw and scrape their way out of the club, its not a good look. Plus he didn't deliver the cheese room.
 
Whilst I don't really agree with Kane's stance, the fact that he feels the need to do this to get his move is not going to help Spurs attract top players/potential going forward.
 
Lastwolf said:
City don't really care about resale value at any point.

Why would you even want to sell a 31 year old Kane? the only avenue I can think of is he's flopped due to injuries or something, in which case his value would have tanked anyway.
Click to expand...
I agree, for City he makes them nailed on to win the PL and favourites for the CL - worth £100m to a club that can print money. It is similar to the RVP situation but on steroids.

I think there's a real chance Grealish stays at Villa, which would contextualise Kane's current strike.
 
redshaw said:
Not great of Raiola to have Pogba sign a 5+1 deal at United though, both Pogba and Kane signed six year deals.
Click to expand...
He was a world record transfer, in a shitload of money (for someone 22-23 years old), and he didn’t renew when we asked for precisely the same reason.

Now he’ll either get half a million per week here or elsewhere (and nice signing on fee etc). Also, playing for United is a bit more prestigious than playing for Spurs.

* United wouldn’t have accepted a shorter contract after paying 100m on fee. Spurs on the other hand would have accepted a shorter contract or else risk losing him in free soon.
 
The thing I don't get about this is, have City even made an official offer? And has it been anywhere near what Kane's worth (Easily over £100m)
 
Harry Should have thought of this before signing that feckin ridiculous renewal.

I have absolutely no sympathy for him. One of the most shocking decisions by a sportsman in recent memory, said that at the time.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
The thing I don't get about this is, have City even made an official offer? And has it been anywhere near what Kane's worth (Easily over £100m)
Click to expand...

They must have indicated to Kane that there's a price they're able to get to, and that it'll take some action on his part to make that an acceptable figure for Spurs.
 
I don't really agree with what Kane is doing here.
He signed a 6 year contract knowing what Spurs are like, he hasn't woken up one day and thought "Oh, I want to win trophies now". Why sign a contract that big without any get out clause?

Surely, a gentleman's agreement means nothing unless figures are discussed. Levy might have said, yes you can leave, even till this day he probably feels the same but the figure has to be right.

Kane has scored buckets of goals in the PL - 5 seasons straight
Kane is England captain - English tax adds £20m to the fee
Kane is at his peak 27 at the moment
Kane cannot be replaced by one player

£120m would be minimum that Spurs entertain.
 
The power is in Spurs hands on this

I think they'd love to get another year out of Kane before cashing in

Unless City stump up 120/130 which they won't I see him staying
 
RUCK4444 said:
Harry Should have thought of this before signing that feckin ridiculous renewal.

I have absolutely no sympathy for him. One of the most shocking decisions by a sportsman in recent memory, said that at the time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it made no sense. He was already their biggest star and could have driven a much harder bargain and got a much better deal for himself. Levy must have laughed himself to sleep that night.
 
Volumiza said:
Yeah, it made no sense. He was already their biggest star and could have driven a much harder bargain and got a much better deal for himself. Levy must have laughed himself to sleep that night.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. He was the hottest property in Europe at the time, or right up there and renews at Spurs, could have gotten a move to any top club he wanted.

Levy must have gotten him p*ssed up or something to sign that. Or just got him on his own, doesn’t seem the brightest spark does he.
 
I don’t think Kane is worth anywhere near 150m. He is 28, has a bad injury history, the PL is a demanding league that is very tough on older players, this is a Covid market, and the British transfer record is under 100m.

Also, while Kane had a great year last year, his performances the prior two years weren’t that exceptional. There was a debate on this very web site about whether he was better than Aubameyang. Now he’s a year older and worth 150m? No.
 
Powderfinger said:
I don’t think Kane is worth anywhere near 150m. He is 28, has a bad injury history, the PL is a demanding league that is very tough on older players, this is a Covid market, and the British transfer record is under 100m.

Also, while Kane had a great year last year, his performances the prior two years weren’t that exceptional. There was a debate on this very web site about whether he was better than Aubameyang. Now he’s a year older and worth 150m? No.
Click to expand...
He is easily worth 150m to Spurs. You have to be blinkered to think he's not. 150M to other clubs, of course not.
 
Powderfinger said:
I don’t think Kane is worth anywhere near 150m. He is 28, has a bad injury history, the PL is a demanding league that is very tough on older players, this is a Covid market, and the British transfer record is under 100m.

Also, while Kane had a great year last year, his performances the prior two years weren’t that exceptional. There was a debate on this very web site about whether he was better than Aubameyang. Now he’s a year older and worth 150m? No.
Click to expand...

Are you serious here?

Since when is 27 old? Players enter into their prime at 26-30, where you get this notion of Old is weird. PL is tougher on older players? I mean Aubemayang is 4 years older than Kane... Aguero was still very good at 30.

Salah, Mane, VVD, KDB are all similar age, does that mean they are not worth money?

Kane had 24 goals 2 assists in 19/20 and 24 goals 6 assists year before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.