150 seems insane and Ballon D'or value of a player bracket. Another 100m for a quality CM also? And maybe a 100m from players we can load off in total.
Victor Osimhen | out of options | goes to Gala on loan
- Thread starter L1nk
- Start date
I get your point, but your post a little bit misleading considering he scored two (and assisted one) against Juventus who would've been second if not for a 15 point deduction. That would obviously make this season's stats look quite different than what you've posted here.
Actually Juventus were second, and were the main threat to Napoli when Osimhen played them... And Roma was in top 4 as well when he scored a wonderful goal against them. The top 6 in Italy are all very close to each other. Only Napoli is standing out.
And what he did against Frankfurt is not less impressive. Frankfurt are the TH of the EL. They qualified from their group ahead of Marseille and Sporting... They looked pretty good against Spurs (the 4th of the PL). So branding them as some canon fodder to dismiss CL goals sounds a bit weird... It wasn't long ago we were getting knocked out of CL Groups because we'd lose in f***g Istanbul. You need players who can score goals in the CL, no matter the opponent.
In what way do you see them as being similar because aside from pace, I don't see any similarities whatsoever?
Kane lacks pace but is a better and complete player. Rashford and Osimhen will not excel at possession football.
Don't agree with this. Haaland is a player that many would say is like Osimhen in that he doesn't contribute to overall play but he doesn't look like he's struggling. Anyways, we don't play posession football really as we don't have the players in midfield that can retain posession.
Eriksen and Casemiro are strong in possession and were brought in by ETH. Just a clue of what ETH values in CM. Kane can drop deep and is a great passer.
Wish they had met some more big name teams on their way to a potential cl final, guess we'll have to eagerly await and assess how he performs in the meager sample provided by the remaining games "assuming " they go through all the way to the end.
His heading ability is one hell of an asset though that must be said.
His heading ability is one hell of an asset though that must be said.
I dispute this. Both have amazing strengths and Casemiro is a good passer in that he can execute difficult passes with better vision than people might have expected but he's also a bit like Bruno in that he lacks composure at times and routinely gives the ball away with his first time passes. He's in the bottom 32% in terms of pass completion. Eriksen is technically very strong but again also a risky passer and so again has a pass completion in the bottom 29%. You can carry one of these players if they are providing you with a) defensive security or b) extreme creativity but you're not going to win leagues with three of these guys in midfield (Bruno would be bottom 11%) as we just can't retain posession to consistently build pressure.
Humouring these reports, €130-150m would be roughly £115m-130m ish if my bad maths holds up?
From a purely financial POV, it would be madness not to prefer that to spending around £100m on Kane (humouring those reports). Because even ignoring the likely higher wages Kane would command, one of those two assets is likely to depreciate in value much more rapidly than the other.
People often use Lukaku as a negative comparison point in various football-related contexts. But from a financial POV, he's an example of why player profiles matter in terms of transfer risk. We signed him for £75m+, he didn't work out, but we were still able to sell him on a few seasons later for approx. £73m. Similarly, Osimhen's age and performances in Serie A pretty much guarantee that (barring a catastrophic career-threatening injury) he will likely maintain high market worth even if he doesn't work out. And that projected future value feeds into how you value players in the present.
That's just the financial argument though. From a football POV if we think Kane is just a better fit then that would be a different story.
Last edited:
Say Kane was available for 75 million considering his interest in the PL would be lower to achieve a 100 mil price tag on his last year contract.
What’s your opinion on price then? 75 mil for Kane vs 125 million (cheapest price possible) for Osimhen?
Kane for 75m, surely? Casemiro cost about that and look at the difference he's made, resell value be damned.
Just to make my point clear, my general opinion is that as long as they don't cost more than you'd be willing to pay for them in isolation then their value relative to each other shouldn't sway our preference either way. They're such different players that the manager/club should really have a very clear idea who the best stylistic fit for their plans and prioritise that player. The other might make far more sense in a from a purely financial POV, but if you're buying that sort of premium asset then the priority isn't relative value.
But to answer your question, from the purely financial POV I was talking about then yep that would have to make a massive difference. Because (assuming your numbers are all in pound sterling) you've reduced Kane's reported fee by 25% while increasing Osimhen's minimum reported cost by about 8%. It would be pretty remarkable if that didn't sway value in Kane's direction.
And again - no one is paying 100 million on the last year of a players contract never mind if Kane pushes for a transfer like he did for City just a year ago.
He had a 120 price tag for City when he had 2 years on his contract - I don’t believe that 20 mil drop in price is realistic on the final year of a players contract. There’s more chance we talk behind Spurs back to get him on a free or just tell him to F off and sign a contract with Spurs.
Osimhen has 2 years left on his contract having already cost 70 mil or more to move to Napoli.
At his cheapest he would be 50 million more than he already cost Napoli - whilst at his most expensive he would be more likely double the price he cost.
There’s links to him costing 150 euros but also 150 million pounds -
https://talksport.com/football/1370980/victor-osimhen-fee-napoli-man-utd-chelsea-transfer-news/amp/
Which makes Osimhen at Kanes most expensive price (which no one will sign him for, not even us) - 50 mil more than Kane, or at Kane’s most realistic price - 70-75 million on a top players last year contract to be almost half the price of Osimhen.
Again, Kane at 100m can stay at Spurs - so this really depends on how much Kane wants to move to United - either he pushes it really hard and we get him in the 65-80 mil range depending on how hard he pushes a transfer on the final year contract to levy’s face.
If Kane doesn’t push the move then Levy will stick for a 100 mil transfer and then eventually sign a new contract because no one is signing him for that much.
Osimhen has 2 years contract and already has Chelsea and United at interest and possibly other clubs.
Just from the interest alone never mind contract length (much more than Kane’s interest or Contract length ) it’s going to have a much more impact on a players price than being this so called 120million pound player in Osimhen - it’s almost as unrealistic as Kane for 100 mil.
Thing is, I'm largely trying to stick with commonly reported price tags, whereas you seem to be doing your own speculation as to what they will cost. Which is fine, and may even prove to be more accurate, but there's no reason for anyone bar you to think that will be the case.
So in Kane's case the £100m price tag has been reported by The Times, The Telegraph, The Mirror, etc. And the lowest reported fee I could find was a minimum £85m several months ago. So when you randomly say you think he'll cost £75m, you could just as easily say £65m, £70m, £55m etc. for all the weight it has. Same with Osimhen, where the minimum amount you're claiming he'll cost is less than the minimum amount it has been reported he'll cost.
If we're just making up and selecting whichever random numbers suit our argument, there's not that much point in arguing about numbers really. It's just guessing.
Just to be clear, the €100m Newcastle bid they're reporting isn't current. That article says it was made a year and a half ago, but I assume they just mean this summer gone as that's when it was previously reported.
Any bids this summer will be for a lot more than €100m off the season he's just had.
Think the club needs to take a longer term approach here. I've come to terms with the value in having a sprinkling of experience in the team with the likes of Casemiro and Varane but we're at the start of a rebuild and I think it would be a real folly to have a spine of starters De Gea, Varane, Casemiro/Eriksen and Kane, many of whom will have cost sizeable fees that won't be recouped/offset when they leave, and most of whom will need to be replaced in 2/3 years when their declines begin and when, as a club, we should be really kicking on.
We don't know how long we will have EtH for so we shouldn't waste time doing constant rebuilds. We need to balance our age profile much better in future because we don't know which of those players will be Zlatans and which will be Rooney's in terms of their longevity.
I absolutely agree in the main, but Kane for 75m is one of those no brainers. In reality, he'll probably go for 100m+ at which point I'd back out and go for someone younger. I seriously doubt De Gea will be our first choice keeper next season, though, and I'm sure we'll bring in 2 midfield reinforcements in the summer.
Think if we really wants to win the league then we go for Kane as hes as proven as it can be and will be more suited to our play. Posters said age about the older group of players we have as spine now, and that shoud be a point to make to buy any striker that give us the best chance to challeng and win the league in 1/2 years and that is Kane.
Kane could easily last at least 4, 5 years more on high level because he is not dependant on pace for his game. And in that time, we could get some new talented striker that will rise.
Simple as that really. People acting like getting him means we can't replace him when he starts to decline. My problem is the price
I prefer Osimhen, but would we care about the price in hindsight if Kane helps us win the league or CL? We talk about him having 4 years left of his peak, but that also applies to quite a fair number of our first team players.
It won't be just him that needs to be replaced in isolation though. It'll be half the team. It takes time to integrate players and we can't just keep blowing through cash in a series of endless resets. Personally think its very unlikely we win the league next season because even if we nail the first team recruitment in the summer (and FPP will hinder this chance masively), I'd imagine we'll still be a little light squad wise.
Endless resets is what keeps us at the top. Half of City's team 5 years ago have been replaced and they are still dominating.
I'd be shocked if we did.
But that reasoning would apply if we spent £150m on him just as much as £100m, or if we bought pretty much any player instead. You can't really start by assuming we'll win the PL/CL and work backwards from there to justify deals. They have to make sense in their own right now, with the understanding that they may or may not lead to success in the future.
The key risk with Kane is that he declines more rapidly than we expect. The key risk with Osimhen is that he flops when moving from another league/club.
Whatever about which of those risks is likely to happen, all else being equal the Kane risk carries more direct financial impact if it happens. Because if he suddenly declines then we're left with a past-it player on a massive contract with little resale value. Whereas if Osimhen flops we're still likely to be able to move him on for a significant fee, because other clubs (in Serie A particularly) will still be interested in him based on his age and what he previously showed for Napoli. Basically being a flop is better than being finished, for all parties.
That shouldn't sway who we prefer, but it should (and does) factor into their pricing. When people talk about preferring younger profile players it isn't just for purely football reasons.
The real killer would be an major injury though. Imagine spending £100m+ on someone and they broke their leg.....
Whatever about which of those risks is likely to happen, all else being equal the Kane risk carries more direct financial impact if it happens. Because if he suddenly declines then we're left with a past-it player on a massive contract with little resale value. Whereas if Osimhen flops we're still likely to be able to move him on for a significant fee, because other clubs (in Serie A particularly) will still be interested in him based on his age and what he previously showed for Napoli. Basically being a flop is better than being finished, for all parties.
That shouldn't sway who we prefer, but it should (and does) factor into their pricing. When people talk about preferring younger profile players it isn't just for purely football reasons.
The real killer would be an major injury though. Imagine spending £100m+ on someone and they broke their leg.....
Nobody is Spunking £100m on a 30 year old with 12 months left on his contract.
They probably will.
Come on, it's totally different. City were rebuilding from a position of strength having won the league in a dominant fashion with a good squad. We haven't won anything meaningful and are currently overperforming on the talent that we have in our first team.
Of course we can replace him, but that'll come at a cost too, which will hamper our ability to spend on other parts of the team. Why spend £100m + Kane replacement (who? will the strikers' market be any good in four years?) when we can spend £125m now?
Assuming Kane declines at 34, Osimhen would be entering his prime then. My problem is whether Osimhen has the required quality as a hold-up guy that EtH wants. I have no doubt that Osimhen will thrive on long balls from Bruno and the likes, and having him and Rashford as a double threat in behind will definitely cause problems for defences.
If anything that's an example of why you don't sign multiple older players.
City, who almost exclusively sign younger players, still found it neccessary to change their squad on that ongoing basis to stay on top. If they had instead signed a load of older players who all needed to be replaced within a similar timeframe, their ability to keep making those changes would have been hurt.
Because instead of making changes they wanted to make, they'd have been forced into spending resources on changes they needed to make. That's how you end up with players who aren't good enough hanging around for too long, as you were too busy fixing other problems to replace them.
Last edited:
I think it may happen. The contract thing doesn't alter his intrinsic value as a player. Sure it's a good lever for potential buyers, but there aren't a lot of world class strikers around, and £100m for one is objectively not too terrible in a sellers market.
Yes, although it remains to be seen whether Osimhen's prime is as good as Kane in decline.
Napoli rejected it, or Osimhen told them that there is no way he is going to Newcastle???
And now a 170million Euro price tag for Osimhen
https://www.goal.com/en/news/live/l...transfer-news-and-rumours/blt85730d1773fca4b8
https://www.goal.com/en/news/live/l...transfer-news-and-rumours/blt85730d1773fca4b8
Who else is offering 100m plus for him with a year to go? Mane went for 30m or so.
Oh you guys thought we’d get him for cheap with no saga
We're dealing with the Italian Daniel Levy here, no chance osimeneh goes for under 150m.
Rubbish source