He'd be worth it too.
- Status
He'd be worth it too.
Easy pass.
Especially with the rapid decline and questions surrounding Rooney these past few years, Kane would sort of bring about a similar ora and simply put, do not want that. Trying to finally move on from Wayne (absolute club legend no I'll intent towards him) so yea just wouldn't want another headache.
...not to mention at the 'reported' price it would cost anyways, just rather look elsewhere for a solution.
Especially with the rapid decline and questions surrounding Rooney these past few years, Kane would sort of bring about a similar ora and simply put, do not want that. Trying to finally move on from Wayne (absolute club legend no I'll intent towards him) so yea just wouldn't want another headache.
...not to mention at the 'reported' price it would cost anyways, just rather look elsewhere for a solution.
A lot of it comes down to the player. People talk about him being Spurs through and through, but given the chance to move to the biggest club in the country, one of the biggest in the world, and more than double your salary....I think he'd jump at it. Because it's not just direct football earnings that would more than double, his marketability would see a stratospheric increase through the global reach of the United brand. Being the figurehead of Spurs is positively provincial by comparison.
I wonder if it's the system that makes him look better than he is, the same as Southampton players looked great when Poch was there.
Kane isn't a £100m player. I like him but that deal would piss me off.
Define "financial strength". In 2 years from now Spurs will probably have a larger income than Juventus and be in the global top 10.
I think if SAF were still in charge he would have signed Kane for a club record price 2 years ago. 
Obviously the term in itself is quite vague, though profitability and liquidity would be most suitable to the current debate.
Profitability measures a company's ability to generate profit. Spurs, at this point in time, are far inferior to United in this regard.
Liquidity, cash on the hip so to speak, would define a football clubs capability in terms of meeting a players salary demands. There or thereabouts.
Needless to say 2 years is a lifetime in football. As i said in a previous post, United can and will meet Kane's demands as of this very moment.
Kane is not making any demands. He's seen his income sky-rocket over the last couple of years, has recently signed a new contract and by all accounts is very happy at Spurs. No doubt his income at Spurs will continue to increase over the next couple of years, as will Spurs ability to pay that income.
The idea that United are unsettling him with massive wage offers is just wishful thinking.
Young, English, PL proven + Levy = £200m
Levy will bend us over probably be cheaper to get Ronaldo!
Levy will bend us over probably be cheaper to get Ronaldo!
Would it not be worth enforcing our financial muscle to not only improve our own attack force significantly, but to weaken theirs too...
Would love him at United, but unfortunately, it's not going to happen.
United: Profit (June 2016) before tax £49m (follows £4m loss in 2015): total profit over those 2 years = £45m
Spurs: Profit (June 2016) before tax £38m (up from £12m in 2015): total profit over those 2 years = £50m
There may be more recent figures for June 2017, if so I don't have them.
Exactly; he's averaged better than a goal a game in 2017. 23 years old, easily broken the 20 goal barrier for 3 seasons now.
Once again, he isn't getting the credit he would if he was Portuguese, Spanish or Brazilian, because his name is Harry and not Henrique.
Commercially Ronaldo makes more sense, but in terms of a long-term asset on the pitch and catalyst for a new cycle of success, Kane would be the better investment.
Harry is a significantly better team player as well.
That's a really weak argument. I don't believe there is anyone in here who doesn't give Kane the credit he deserves. But for all his achievements, he simply lacks the talent of a £100m plus player. Let's be honest here, he isn't a Suarez, Bale, Neymar, Messi nor CR7 level of talent. He is in the class of the Lewandowskis of this world and even they wouldn't be worth 100m
I don't rate him that high. Lukaku level and neither should be 100m+...
He just scored 29 goals in the premier league after being out for months with injury. That's after scoring over 20 the two seasons previous. He's 23. In today's market, whether you like it or not, that makes him worth 100m.
Where dis you get those figures from? Post the source.
Do you think if Spurs continue to challenge for top 4 but don't win a title in the next 3 seasons, he'll be happy to stay?
Take Kane out of Spurs, and they would struggle to make top 4. His value to Tottenham is greater than just his value as a player. It would be absurd if they considered selling him.
Would be daft not to bid at least 150m for Kane.
Given our wealth, need for goals, ability to utterly smash Spuds wage structure and the fact that he's English and would likely stay for 10 years, there's just no reason not to at least let him know that he's wanted here.
Given our wealth, need for goals, ability to utterly smash Spuds wage structure and the fact that he's English and would likely stay for 10 years, there's just no reason not to at least let him know that he's wanted here.
No chance, he'd of resigned Ronnie for the money being talked aboutI think if SAF were still in charge he would have signed Kane for a club record price 2 years ago.
100m for Kevin Phillips mk2
Pretty sure that Jon Richardson who did the story is the same guy who linked us to Messi a year ago, to much amusement
I meant wage demands.
If history in football has taught us anything, it's that every player has a price. The vast majority of high profile transfers are initiated through an array of unsettling abilities pressed forward by the persuing club and their staff. This is the way of the football world. Being a Spurs fan I'm sure you can appreciate this, if perhaps opposed to the strategu somewhat. Unethical? Sure. Productive? Absolutely.
To think a footballer of Kane's ability could not be seduced by a substantial increase in salary is a little naive, Glaston. He is a human being/professional footballer out to make as much money as he can from the game prior to his retirement, just like the rest of them.
Last edited:
- A bid of 120 might be needed. But afraid he won't be that effective against European top sides. He looks basic whenever I see him play for England. Excellent finisher but for that kind of money you would want something more. He's no Suarez, Lewandowski, Dybala etc. He's a step below with the likes of Higuain and Diego Costa so 100 should be a decent value considering today's market and the Levi's factor.
See Forbes website for my retort: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoz...ds-most-profitable-soccer-teams/#797fde86a2f4
We can all scour the internet to find some highly selective reading material in order to empower an argument. Kind of pointless if you ask me, we both know that a debate on financial strength involving Spurs and United is a one-sided arguement.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/01/premier-league-finances-club-by-club ... posted by them on June 1st of this year.
All the figures come from the most recently published annual reports at Companies House.
This is a non starter. More chance in signing Bale.
Probably not. But then if he wants to leave he'll be sold abroad.
No it does not. It should make him about the price of Higuain. And if he is to be more expensive he shouldn't pass 85m. Him going for 100m is as laughable as the price being quoted for Lukaku.
Higuain is 29, may have been 28 when he went for that price. Kane has 5 years extra playing time. You're having a joke if you think they were worth the same. Add on inflation with another year of premier league money and the fact Spurs have no need to sell.
No chance with Kane. When he leaves you he'll go to another English team.
Out of interest, hypothetically, if he was guaranteed to leave for another PL club, where would you prefer for him to go to out of Utd, Chelsea or City?
I'm guessing given the amount of time you spend on a Utd board that it'd be Utd.
You are assuming he'd ever want to go abroad. That isn't a given
The figures I've quoted come from Companies House. They are not "highly selective" - they are the official, audited accounts.
The figures you've quoted are for one year only, use pound-to-dollar exchange rates and appear to be not simply profit before tax.
That will the only option on offer to him if he ever wants to leave.
I don't understand why people can't grasp the concept that the very concept of a 'valuation' is completely dependent on what the selling club wants it to be.
In your mind, Harry Kane may feel very differently.
- Status