Why dont people want us to go after top level strikers but instead are talking about these two journeymen?
Vardy/Kane to replace Rooney in the summer?
- Thread starter Lewis.no.9
- Start date
The difference between Manchester United and spurs is similar to that between a lannister and a frey. You may done a few shrewd signing bit in terms of money and global appeal you are nowhere near to us
Kane is a journeyman?
He owns a caravan.
yes, he is a good striker, will have a decent career. He will be like Robbie Keane, not one of the greats or one of the best strikers around but a really good striker who scores a decent number of goals.
In single season in England Robbie Keane never scored 21 league goals nor 31 goals in all competitions. The most he managed in a single season was 16 league goals and (in a different season) 23 in all competitions ... and in both cases he was several years older than Kane is now.
The "journeyman" tag strikes me as the latest fallback position now that the "one season wonder" claim has fallen by the wayside.
Haha spot on.
Hilarious comparisons to Robbie Keane and a suggestion £60m will cut it.
The guy has scored something like 50 goals in 101 games for Spurs and see 22. And Spurs were very average until quite recently.
It will take a record bid and even at that Spurs will not want to sell. Player power may force it due to the bumper payday he would get.
If they make CL though, no chance. Likely it would be at the expense of our spot as well.
He is the golden boy of English football right now.
A talent like that - proven in the PL, young, English, scores goals - is an extremely valuable commodity.
We paid £36m down and up to £56m with bonuses for a relatively unknown kid from the French league.
The more I see Kane, the more I like of him. Links up play well and has a good eye for goal and a good presence in the air. However, I don't see him suceeeding at the current United team - I would see him struggling like our other strikers in the team as we just wouldn't create enough chances for him.
Sign a winger or 3 (good ones) and I'd love him here - otherwise we should stay well clear - especially at the reported prices.
Sign a winger or 3 (good ones) and I'd love him here - otherwise we should stay well clear - especially at the reported prices.
It's 2016 Premier League economics. Not 2007 anymore.
Absolutely we would need more additions.
Messi would look shit playing with these lot.
We just should build an altar of his and sacrifice a goat or something so that he comes.
That's the thing though - if we sign him as a 50m striker, he'd be expected to score goals - our midfield creativity will not be questioned - but the golden boy will become a flop due to his failure to score.
It's debateable whether it's the players or the tactics (or both) but until we get that fixed, we should stay clear of Kane. He's not a Martial type player that can do things on his own - so he would look even worse at the current United team.
Of course we couldn't only sign him. We need an entire new attack basically.
Kane would bring so much to the table. His movement, link up play, passing. And, of course, goals, which is what we need desperately.
It's ridiculous to expect us to pay a world-record fee for Kane when the rest of the squad is also in need of surgery.
We'd probably need to bring in another four or five players if we don't buy anyone in January. That would be an astronomically high outlay for one summer.
We'd probably need to bring in another four or five players if we don't buy anyone in January. That would be an astronomically high outlay for one summer.
Kane would be a great signing. How is this even up for debate. The lad is class.
Of course he would, but it would take a ridiculous fee to make Levy even think about selling him. The fact that we need players elsewhere makes it unfavourable.
Labelling a 22 year old as a Journeyman, this place cracks me up sometimes. 
I wouldn't pay anymore than 40 mil for Kane. If Levy requires more then I would politely tell him to shove it up his arse.
We just paid £36 million for the unproven Martial. A proven premier league striker like Kane will go for £60 million plus.
£40 million these days will only buy you potential (as crazy as that sounds ffs). We need a proven goalscorer and that's going to cost north of £50 million for any established striker.
It's a crazy world when £40 million isn't seen as a lot of money for a player :-)
I think Levy will be looking for something in the world record region for Kane now, he knows he's a goalscorer and he knows they are few and fair between these days. I don't see Spurs selling for less that 80 million, as unrealistic a figure that sounds, I think that's what they will ask for.
No one will pay that for him though. Why would they when you could probably get Lewandowski for that? And Suarez went for less than that too!
I'm not saying anyone will pay that figure, but they will certainly demand that kind of money. Let's face facts, Liverpool's hand was forced with Suarez, he'd got the ban for biting and was becoming a huge problem. Lewandowski would go for a world record figure if he was on the open market, I'm almost certain of that.
@Devil81 is probably right. It will take 70 to 80m to sign him, which is obviously bonkers, but that's just the way it is dealing with Levy. You can most likely get Lukaku for 50m and a decent winger for the fee that Kane is going to cost.
Why do you insist on ignoring the very substantial potential add-ons? Normally the total potential fee is the figure used.
Gareth is obviously new to glastonomics and glastomathics so please spare him.
Cut the BS. The fee with potential add-ons is far more than £36m.
I'd probably suggest the same but then you'd have to delete your account here.
How much we have we paid then, 50 mln quid and Monaco will give us the money from add-ons that were not activated back? Frightening if it sounds logical in your head.
Potential add ons are just that, potential add ons. Martial could break his leg tomorrow and never reach his potential and the add ons would never be paid.
All we know at the moment is that Monoco will get a minimum of £36 million for him. If United end up paying more than that then it will be because he's become one of the best players in the world.
I don't actually know why you are getting annoyed with me for. I was merely saying that if a virtual unknown like Martial was sold for such a large sum an established PL player like Kane would go for far far more.
Ask him how much Soldado cost next, just to see the double standard he's pushing.
70 million seems a right price for him, great talent. Wonder what seems right for @GlastonSpur , 200 million approximately?
One team player = journeyman?
Also Kane looks set to have a much better career than Keane, who was a true journeyman.
is that a new branch of mathematics proposed by glaston to replace arithmetics?
True. I don't expect us to rebuild into a top quality team anytime soon though. At market rates, and assuming every signing came off (never going to happen), it would take an astronomical figure to make us competitive at the top end end of the CL.
It simply won't happen. We may spend a very big figure and establish ourselves as comfortable top 4, which is what our business model demands (third spot, precisley).
On the contrary, defying logic is the speciality of those posters who pretend that potential-add on fees either don't exist or aren't usually and mostly (or completely) eventually paid. And they're usually mostly paid eventually because they normally include things like the number of appearances, number of goals scored etc.
And when such potential add-ons represent large sums of money - as they do with Martial for example - then such logic-defiance becomes especially perverse.
Why do you care what Martial is going to cost United?
I think we're entitled to spend whatever we want on a player, it's not like we've landed a fat cat owner who's willing to spend multi millions of his own cash.
Of course, you're entitled to spend whatever you want on a player. But for the purposes of discussion on here about transfer fees, gross spend and net spend - for any/all players, not just Martial - it only serves to muddy the waters if the fees quoted exclude all potential-add ons.
His potential addons have been done to death here with you throwing some shit articles with made up numbers and plethora of posters here throwing other numbers that were even confirmed by Monaco iirc. The facts are that we've paid the figure without addons for him whether you like it or not and if he ticks the boxes for the addons then we'll pay them, at the moment we haven't.
He's obsessed with our finances, how much we spend, how much we earn, etc. Loves to use double standards when pointed out with Tottenham's failures such as paying 100 mln quid for Soldado and 75 mln quid for Llamela. Got huge problems with simple maths himself which has been proven, mainly by him, numerous times before.
Yes. Vasilyev [Monaco's vice-president] said: "It's true that the price for Martial is £57.6m but take into account this sum includes bonuses which are very realistic". The fact that United haven't yet paid any add-ons sums is irrelevant except in so far it affects cash-flow. Indeed, most non-bonus sums are paid in instalments anyway, yet no-one argues that this total should be down-played simply because some of it has not yet been paid.
I've no idea why you quote ridiculous figures concerning Soldado and Lamela. The fee agreed for Soldado for example was £26m, including a large-chunk of potential future add-ons. And nor do I regard Lamela as a failure: he's a regular part of our current first XI.
So you can't tell the difference between addons and the basic sum paid in installments? Well that's new but I'm not surprised.