Harry Kane

Status
Not open for further replies.
If we are going to buy a striker I think Kane would be a great signing for us.
Proven in the Premiership.
Young and bags of potential.
English.
Scores all types of goals.
Not too expensive.
Would fit into LVG playing style.

Sign him up Woody!!
 
MV12 said:
If we are going to buy a striker I think Kane would be a great signing for us.
Proven in the Premiership.
Young and bags of potential.
English.
Scores all types of goals.
Not too expensive.
Would fit into LVG playing style.

Sign him up Woody!!
Click to expand...

you think?. I would say anything near £50mill+ for him is expensive
 
Bojan11 said:
Not really.

We saw towards the end of last season that teams started to figure him out and pay more attention in him.

Also it depends on if the player can handle the expectation in a new season as all eyes will be on him. A poor start and he might fold.
Click to expand...
Precisely. He also then went on to have a very poor U21s where he should have been head and shoulders above the rest of the side, though he may have some small justification in that the whole squad was pretty poor.
 
Lewis.no.9 said:
you think?. I would say anything near £50mill+ for him is expensive
Click to expand...
Going by what players are being sold for in todays market, then yes.
We paid 30M for Luke Shaw two years back, for a deffender.
Sterling was sold last week or so for 50M
Kane is a goal scorer. Someone who can make the difference in winning and losing.
Yes he's young, yes he's only had one season being so impressive, but, he has shown over that season that he is more than capable of bringing himself to the level that's needed to succeed.. You don't score 30 plus goals in a season in the Premier League without being pretty damn handy.
If we sign him he'll only get better in my opinion.
And also if we wait another year there will be other suiters vying for his signature.
 
There's just something I love about signing English players and having them become absolute stars for Utd. I think with Kane it could go either way, and even at 40mil price, he's worth the punt.
 
Aldo said:
... Kane can dream of being anywhere near Di maria's talent though, which is what we paid for.
Click to expand...

What you paid for was a "galactico" name to fulfil the craving of fans and to try and prove to the world - by throwing around cash - that United are up there with the likes of Real Madrid, Bayern and Barca. I told you at the time that he wasn't especially needed and wouldn't be a good signing.

And that's a big part of the problem with your general transfer policy: galacticos/big names at the expense of developing your own youth players. So I couldn't give a stuff about di Maria's supposed £60m talent ... instead I'll take Harry Kane's home-grown dedication and goal nous every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
 
GlastonSpur said:
What you paid for was a "galactico" name to fulfil the craving of fans and to try and prove to the world - by throwing around cash - that United are up there with the likes of Real Madrid, Bayern and Barca. I told you at the time that he wasn't especially needed and wouldn't be a good signing.

And that's a big part of the problem with your general transfer policy: galacticos/big names at the expense of developing your own youth players. So I couldn't give a stuff about di Maria's supposed £60m talent ... instead I'll take Harry Kane's home-grown dedication and goal nous every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Click to expand...
It's not my problem that you can only look at the name and not the quality.
 
Didn't someone write up a list of U21 English strikers who scored more than 20 in a season? I'm pretty sure the list is very small and not one of them was a flop.
 
GlastonSpur said:
What you paid for was a "galactico" name to fulfil the craving of fans and to try and prove to the world - by throwing around cash - that United are up there with the likes of Real Madrid, Bayern and Barca. I told you at the time that he wasn't especially needed and wouldn't be a good signing.

And that's a big part of the problem with your general transfer policy: galacticos/big names at the expense of developing your own youth players. So I couldn't give a stuff about di Maria's supposed £60m talent ... instead I'll take Harry Kane's home-grown dedication and goal nous every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Click to expand...
He'll be a good edition to our team then, thanks.
 
Summit said:
Glaston would have been the first to say we over paid for them. Now he uses them as a barometer to say Kane is worth 40m.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying Kane is worth £40m. I'm saying that Kane is worth far more than £40m.
 
do.not.want.

40m for Kane when Griezmann for example has a release clause of 43m is nuts.
 
He's English so will cost a lot of money, I think we should wait to see how he does in his second season before spending so much money, how many times have we seen players do so well in their first season and be underwhelming in their second.
 
We either gamble on him now, or we get ripped off to hell if we wait and he's a success. God knows what sort of money we're talking about if he repeats his form again.
 
GlastonSpur said:
:lol: Ah yes, how easy it is to convince yourself that other clubs should just sell you the players that you want.
Click to expand...

No offence meant, it is what it is. Spurs are smaller club than United, City, Chelsea & Arsenal even in England.

He could and may well stay, but if there is interest at all from LVG he really should get it done.

£40m + Hernandez would be a good bit of business for Spurs.
 
LilRicky said:
Bale had 1 season where he hit that many goals and how much did Real spend on him again? ;)
Click to expand...

You can't use Real to justify logic. They sold Makalele, they bought Gravesen, they fired Ancelotti and replaced him with Fact-man Benitez and the list goes on and on and on and on.

Really is a circus.
 
GlastonSpur said:
What you paid for was a "galactico" name to fulfil the craving of fans and to try and prove to the world - by throwing around cash - that United are up there with the likes of Real Madrid, Bayern and Barca. I told you at the time that he wasn't especially needed and wouldn't be a good signing.

And that's a big part of the problem with your general transfer policy: galacticos/big names at the expense of developing your own youth players. So I couldn't give a stuff about di Maria's supposed £60m talent ... instead I'll take Harry Kane's home-grown dedication and goal nous every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that's complete and total garbage. Di Maria is a proven talent who the season before he pitched up here was the star man in a Champions League final. It didnt work out in the Premier League - a lot like it hasn't for some of the player Spurs signed with the Bale money. That happens and its regrettable, but he could just as well have been a great success. Relatively speaking he's been no worse a signing that Lamela given the relative financial strengths of Spurs and United.

And as regards youth players, the issue for genuine top 4 clubs like United is not producing Premier League players - but players good enough to play for a top 4 club. Welbeck is a good example. Not good enough for the very top level but would arguably be a regular for Spurs. You can be smug having produced Kane - one potentially very good player with a lot still to prove, and a number of others like Rose, Mason and maybe Pritchard who are not as it stands even regulars for Spurs, let alone top sides. Perreria and Januzaj are potentially as good as any of those players andf no doubt the club continues to produce not only players hopefully good enough for United, but plenty of others who will go on to have a career in the game. As an aside there are lots of ex united youth team players playing at all levels - more so that Spurs I bet.

United's "general transfer policy" has this year brought in Schneiderlin who Spurs were desperate for last summer and Schweinsteiger (for a decent fee) who has won it all and will add leadership and experience to the side, in order to address the obvious issues we had last year. Alongisde Herrera and Carrick that looks like a fine midfield.

Depay is 21 years old and a genuine talent and Pedro (if he comes in) looks like an excellent buy for a decent fee. None of these players are "galacticos" or any where near.

Spurs meanwhile are heavily reliant on Harry Kane with Soldado and Adebayor the only other options while Spurs are sniffing around Charlie Austin. I think I prefer our transfer policy to be honest.
 
RedRover said:
Spurs meanwhile are heavily reliant on Harry Kane with Soldado and Adebayor the only other options while Spurs are sniffing around Charlie Austin. I think I prefer our transfer policy to be honest.
Click to expand...

Spurs are hunting at least one striker with Soldado probably off to Villarreal and Adebayor off too Villa.

Clinto N'Jie (Lyon Striker) has had two bids declined apparently.
 
Dirty Schwein said:
You can't use Real to justify logic. They sold Makalele, they bought Gravesen, they fired Ancelotti and replaced him with Fact-man Benitez and the list goes on and on and on and on.

Really is a circus.
Click to expand...

Very true, I would also credit Levy with milking them for every penny as well. Didn't Bale complain about Spurs conduct, or Levy's? That they were delaying his transfer. If Madrid can pay less for a player of course they will do that, they offered a dispicable £13m for De Gea.

I'm sure Madrid probably carried on in a similar fashion over Bale.
 
golden_blunder said:
Why?
Click to expand...

The manager has said we lack speed and creativity in attack and Griezmann would add that in abundance.
If we want to play 433 with wide fowards he would be a great addition who could play anywhere across the foward line, just like Depay & Pedro.

Young is a good player, but if we are ambitious, he shouldn't be anywhere near the starting 11, or even be considered a wide forward to bring off the bench in a big UCL QF game vs Barca to try and win us the game either.
 
Isn't Griezmann more of a number 10 than an out and out striker? I know he got a fair few goals for Atletico last season, but don't we need a main striker, an alternative to Rooney in the middle of a three?
 
Enigma_87 said:
40m for Kane when Griezmann for example has a release clause of 43m is nuts.
Click to expand...

£49m for Sterling when Nani is available for £4m is nuts. It doesn't work as simply as you seem to think.

FWIW, I'd rather have Kane, given that we seem to have plans to cover the more versatile forwards positions (ie we don't need Griezmann)
 
GlastonSpur said:
I'm not saying Kane is worth £40m. I'm saying that Kane is worth far more than £40m.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is he's worth 20 million? It's not very clear the way you word it...
 
Sir A1ex said:
Why do you think we've got a God-given right to sign him? If he has a good second season, there's every chance he goes to a different club.
Click to expand...

You are right we don't, but there's a good chance he would be interested in moving to us if we tried.
 
Sir A1ex said:
£49m for Sterling when Nani is available for £4m is nuts. It doesn't work as simply as you seem to think.

FWIW, I'd rather have Kane, given that we seem to have plans to cover the more versatile forwards positions (ie we don't need Griezmann)
Click to expand...

True. Also, there's something to be said for a player who has proven he can score in the Premier League.
 
Sir A1ex said:
When Madrid come calling, or City / Chelsea offer him crazy money?
Click to expand...

Most British players prefer to stay in the PL, we can match them for money and i'm hoping we get closer to competing with them on the pitch seeing as it's LVG's second season, so don't see why we could not beat them to him.
 
golden_blunder said:
Supply and demand

Kane is the type we need. Spurs don't need to sell.

We don't need griezmann
Click to expand...

Left footed winger/second striker who can as well play up front, scoring plenty of goals, 24 years old, I'd say he's exactly what we need (as well as a regular, typical #9, mind).
 
LilRicky said:
Ah I see your applying logic to transfers fees!

Sterling was £49m in case you missed it and he has done little to nothing so far, Kane has had an incredible season at least. What has Sterling managed? Blows hot and cold throughout the season.

In an ideal world Kane would probably be valued at half the price quoted, reality is though Spurs and Levy would be looking for a minimum of £40m. If Kane was tempted by a bumper pay day and prospect of CL football to test himself why wouldn't he take that chance? I doubt Spurs will be getting CL football again any time soon so unless he moves this summer or next he could well get stuck there.

A move to United suits all parties as far as I can see.
Click to expand...
Sterling is currently better and far more experienced than Kane. Kane would probably go for the same but that is mainly cause he isn't pushing for a transfer like Sterling did.
 
2mufc0 said:
Most British players prefer to stay in the PL, we can match them for money and i'm hoping we get closer to competing with them on the pitch seeing as it's LVG's second season, so don't see why we could not beat them to him.
Click to expand...

Still, massively increases the risk of losing out. And if we have another mediocre season, we'd need him more than ever, and stand very little chance of getting him.

And Spurs last super-star didn't prefer to stay in the PL. Another one we could have got earlier.
 
Well Kane on Fifa 15 is only valued at peanuts, based on that, anything over £8million is a rip off.
 
GlastonSpur said:
What you paid for was a "galactico" name to fulfil the craving of fans and to try and prove to the world - by throwing around cash - that United are up there with the likes of Real Madrid, Bayern and Barca. I told you at the time that he wasn't especially needed and wouldn't be a good signing.

And that's a big part of the problem with your general transfer policy: galacticos/big names at the expense of developing your own youth players. So I couldn't give a stuff about di Maria's supposed £60m talent ... instead I'll take Harry Kane's home-grown dedication and goal nous every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Click to expand...

We lost as much on Di Maria flop as you did on the much hyped Paulinho (that was apparently the sort of player United should have gone for in your opinion) and much less than you're going to lose on Soldado or Lamela. Funny how you forget that.
 
Sarni said:
We lost as much on Di Maria flop as you did on the much hyped Paulinho (that was apparently the sort of player United should have gone for in your opinion) and much less than you're going to lose on Soldado or Lamela. Funny how you forget that.
Click to expand...
He won't reply in this. He never does so in these cases.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.