So what would Sturridge be worth after 13/14? Something like 70 million? 100 million for Kane is idiotic in every way you look at it.
Harry Kane
- Thread starter orangeboom999
- Start date
- Status
Kane 100m 
Dont give Levy any ideas
I am struggling to see him at 40m at this point
Dont give Levy any ideasI am struggling to see him at 40m at this point
He'll get 11 this season and we'll all move on.
He's worth no more than £30-35m after last season.
That's daft. The only player who has been transferred recently who was worthy of a Bale-like fee, was Ronaldo. That's the sort of player you pay 85-90 million for. Not Kane. For such an absurd fee, you deserve an absurd player, a one of the best of his generation type player, like Ronaldo.
The age point is relevant but along with a young age comes an element of being unproven. Why did Suarez go to Barca for more than he did to Liverpool? I mean he was younger so he should have cost Liverpool 150 million, right? Wrong, he wasn't proven enough to provide as much of an assurance of top performances as when Barca signed him.
No. If he scores 20 goals next season then he's a £100m player. If he has Ronaldo 2008-like season I'm thinking around £280m to £350m and there will be at least 3 or 4 clubs bidding around £300m for him.
Yes, people actually have logic like that in this thread
Soon Kane will be £1bn player.Did Kane outperform Costa last season? Was he better than Costa was at Atletico? Better than the likes of Bacca, Jackson Martinez etc.? People seem to believe he's worth around 4-5 times more than them.
It's ridiculous. I'm not sure whether people realize we're not talking about monopoly money.
I feel there's too much presumption.
Two 20 goal seasons at 23 + English + consistent development of all attributes ala football manager from age of 23 to 28 = 100 million.
Forgetting that a player can score 23 goals, or he can have a season like, say Suarez and Costa did in 13/14, while scoring 23 goals, and the difference between the two.
Kane is highly marketable and with his massive rise is already a high profile name in this country. If he joined a Top 4 club and featured in the UCL etc, his stock would rise again. If he came to Utd, with our global reach etc, he would sell an unreal amount of shirts. So not only is it silly for us to all complain about transfer fees as its not our money and we should just enjoy the ride, but its even more stupid when you factor in how many shirts we would sell with kane 9 on the back for example.
Kevin Phillips scored 30 Premier League goals once.
Please not this again.
We don't actually receive money from shirt sales. We could manufacture Harry Kane masks though, maybe that will recoup £100million.
I think we're missing a trick not getting Charlie Austin in before he goes on to have another 18 goal season and Real buy him for £70M next year. If he can get that many for a team as shit as QPR, he'd be banging in at least 60 a season at Madrid.
Also, there's this absurd thinking that scoring goals in Premier League is incredibly difficult because of amazing level of defending in the league and no one could ever score a goal here if they came from abroad. 1 goal in PL is worth as much as 5 goals in La Liga and 10 goals in Bundesliga. Lewandowski's return for Bayern for example is worth about 10% of Berahino.
You just know you need to look abroad for transfers when Harry Kane is worth £100m and someone like Pedro coming from Barcelona is worth £20m, City sign Aguero for £35m, Chelsea get Costa for £25m and Real Madrid sign Benzema for £32m while quoted price for Lewandowski before Bayern transfer had been around £25m.
I think the exorbitant deals stick so much in people's mind that it seemingly justifies bad spending, when, as you've mentioned, there are plenty of deals that occur at reasonable or par values.
Buying a 20-goal striker for £100m is definitely not a way to run a football club. People laughed at Carroll transfer yet paying 3 times as much for Kane would represent an equally bad or even worse piece of business. You pay that sort of money for the absolute best players in the world, select two or three names. We'd end up having a £800m team consisting of players like Kane, Stones etc. who although good would never put us two or three leve above Barcelona like people expect them to by putting Kane's price well above Neymar and Suarez (and neither of them were bargains!).
But then again we would make the money back on famous shirt sales.
He was good player, wasn't he?
Kane will eventually move on from Spurs; he looks set to play for a top tier league team and by the time he's available I guarantee it City will be in there whacking down £70-£80m for him. If Utd are interested they should act now. The fee is irrelevant, he is a quality player and at the age of 22 a marvellous investment. I'd like to see him playing for us this season and wouldn't be too down trodden if it took £50-£60m to acquire him. I sense Levy knows he'll make a stack of cash off him that's why he offered him a contract extension midway through last season.
So how come in September 2014, Man Utd announced record revenues of £433.2million stating they had sold 2million replica shirts the year before?
And this was before the newer lucrative deal with Adidas. Clearly Utd make money on selling the club jerseys. They would be stupid not to.
£433m revenues had been from the entire business not shirt sales (it's actually shocking that I have to point this out) and it's normal to mention improving shirt sales and merchandise revenue as these reports often serve as attachments for investors.
We might receive a tiny bit from every shirt sales but 2 million shirts wouldn't bring much revenue at all. And there's also cannibalization which comes into it (analysts will know what I mean) and I imagine that it would be around 80 to even 90 per cent here - which in simplification means that those who'd buy Kane shirt would have got United shirt anyway, just with a different name (or without any name) because they are United fans rather than Kane fans - and it brings no additional revenue to the club. It's only with players like Beckham or Ronaldo (i.e. cult heroes) that football fans could possibly change their favourite team or buy a shirt of a team they do not normally support and it'd be a relatively small number anyway.
That rules out United then: your average finishing position over the last two seasons is halfway between 5th and 6th
Where did i say that £433million was JUST FROM THE 2million shirt sales?
well good for you?. You want a medal. End of the day Kanes face at this club would work from every angle. You dont like the idea of Utd buying Kane?. Thats fine. City are just down the road, perhaps Sterling at £50million is more to your tastes?
£60m for a player who was on loan at Leicester 18 months ago and has had one good season in Premier League when the going rate for top European strikers is around £30m (Costa, Bacca, Martinez). Good luck with that attitude.
That rules out United then: your average finishing position over the last two seasons is halfway between 5th and 6th
Yeah and our average position during the last 10 years is somewhere between 1st and 2nd, positions Spurs never occupied even for a minute.
So why even connect £433m with shirt sales when they could only generate a tiny amount? Besides as I've said, if someone goes out and buys Kane shirt they'd have probably bought a Depay, Rooney or whoever shirt if we had no Kane. The amount of people who wouldn't otherwise buy a shirt will be very small. There's no argument that we could recoup even 10% of £100m from extra shirt sales generated by Kane signing.
Why would I go and support City because I don't think Kane is worth £100m? How do you even come to this? I'm pretty sure Kane is not going to play for United at any point in his career BTW.
That rules out United then: your average finishing position over the last two seasons is halfway between 5th and 6th
Kane oozes quality, it's plain to see. No one balked at the £50m price tag of Sterling on here, Kane is better than him in my opinion and also if we apply this logic floating about that the total transfer sum averages out over their length of service then £60m ain't too shabby if he plays at a high level over the next 8-10 years.
His 21-goal season has really made people go absolutely mental in terms of realizing how good he actually is. We've seen players like Griezmann, Martinez, Bacca, Costa move for below £30m or in some cases even below £20m in recent years and they had all been more proven than Kane. Vietto who was great for Villarreal last season went for £16m to Atletico (only 13 goals but he was mostly a support striker there). Lewandowski before Bayern made a move was valued at around £30m by Borussia. The only players to have ever cost £60m+ are Ronaldo, Bale, Suarez and Neymar. Surely you can clearly see the difference between them and Kane?
Kane oozes quality, it's plain to see. No one balked at the £50m price tag of Sterling on here, Kane is better than him in my opinion and also if we apply this logic floating about that the total transfer sum averages out over their length of service then £60m ain't too shabby if he plays at a high level over the next 8-10 years.
I think Sterling has far more to his game than Kane and has been good in Premier League for more than two seasons, he wasn't a surprise. Still I reckon £47m was high but a lot of that was dictated by the fact that Liverpool had to give almost 20% of the fee to QPR. A player from abroad of the same skill set would have likely cost £30m to £40m but English tax plus the fact that City had to meet homegrown quota had inflated the price.
Personally I don't think Kane is all that. English hype as per usual has made people overrate him beyond belief. He is certainly not two or three levels ahead of proven European strikers like Jackson Martinez, Lewandowski or Diego Costa. He's not even close to the level of Suarez or Neymar like people have suggested with £80m price tags or Messi and Ronaldo as it's been suggested with £100m+ valuation.
That rules out United then: your average finishing position over the last two seasons is halfway between 5th and 6th
Fantastic sample size
He's a WUM and not even hiding it these days.
All true. Not sure why it is in disagreement to my comments? Seems to support it?
I'm saying that La Liga is broke, thus the value of La Liga proven players is less than the value of PL (loaded) proven players.
So, the whole 'English' premium on players is easily explainable and makes absolute sense. There is also a similar, if not equal, premium for Premiership proven foreign players.
As I have said this might add a few extra per cent to the fee. It doesn't justify spending 500% of Diego Costa or Antoine Griezmann price on Kane after two decent seasons. Or beating world record fee by £20m to sign a striker with 40 league goals. You would expect a Spurs striker to be getting at least 12-15 a season anyway so it would basically be £100m for 8-10 goals he will have delivered over expected return. Don't you see how absurd is that?
We are going to need a new poster boy soon. This guy could be England's golden boy.
IF he does turn out to be a top, top draw centre forward, I think in 2016 it is completely realistic to expect it to take a world record fee to sign him.
IF he is the real deal (TBC this season).
IF he does turn out to be a top, top draw centre forward, I think in 2016 it is completely realistic to expect it to take a world record fee to sign him.
IF he is the real deal (TBC this season).
Where are people getting a £100m figure from anyway? World record is £85m.
No one is suggesting he is worth half that now. I think some of us are saying IF he proves to be a world class, 22 year old, centre forward and poster boy for England/the Premier League he absolutely will cost a world record like fee.
No one is suggesting he is worth half that now. I think some of us are saying IF he proves to be a world class, 22 year old, centre forward and poster boy for England/the Premier League he absolutely will cost a world record like fee.
On a separate note, I think we already would have signed him by now, had he played for any club outside of the top 4 plus Spurs, who have proven tough bastards to negotiate with.
If he scores around 40 goals this season and then manages around 50 next season, some of them in Champions League against the big clubs, then maybe yes.
If he repeats last season he will still be a £30m to £40m player.
If Spurs sign Berhino, I can see us potentially getting him for around £40 million plus add ons. This would give us Kane, Fat Boy, Hernandez, Wilson and Januzaj. Maybe send Januzaj or Wilson on loan as I think 4 strikers are enough and I don't think Spurs would do a player exchange involving Hernandez as that rarely happens in football. Whatever the case, I think Kane is a very good all round player and would give Rooney some much need competition.
There isn't enough proof of Kane's quality atm. I think if we buy him now he could well end up being an impact sub. We have the money. Why argue about how much we hypothetically would have to spend. The whole argument should be about whether he's world class or not. We'll just have to wait and see not just his goal return but his performances against the big boys as well (which is what set bale apart from many others).
- Status