Harry Kane

[easley91]

It almost needs a siren to alert everyone. As ever when Graeme Souness, Gary Neville and Micah Richards gather to debate issues pitchside or in the studio, the audience is royally entertained and richly informed. Sky’s insistence on continued social distancing between the feisty trio appears advisable as hackles rise. So it was on Sunday at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium when Harry Kane’s future was again on the agenda with noisy pundits knocking seven decibels out of each other.

Souness and Neville were born bristling, the pugilist trait underpinning their glittering careers. Richards is mellower but still fights his corner with a forthright passion. When Paul Pogba’s name and his future were lobbed into the Kane discussion, it was like the first time nitro and glycerine were introduced to each other. Sparks flew.


Souness has a pronounced problem with Pogba and his perceived commitment levels, slightly overlooking his four assists for Manchester United the day before, let alone the Frenchman’s World Cup medal. Neville considers anyone contemplating quitting United as a renegade requiring challenging, even counselling, possibly confining. Red Nev also has an issue with Pogba’s agent, Mino Raiola, whose name alone causes palpitations inside Carrington.

Richards, a confident, welcome new voice among such media monarchs, argued that double standards were at play over the respective headline treatment of Pogba and Kane. Richards wasn’t playing the race card, although many on social media do. Richards simply articulated the view that Kane was getting off lightly. “Kane’s not turned up for training and we call him a saint,” Richards said. “Pogba’s never said he wanted to leave and he’s getting abuse.” Pogba, arguably, has even more cause to ponder his future with one year remaining on his contract. Kane has three.
It made for great television, but also required further analysis. The situations, and personalities, are slightly different. Raiola operates as a lightning conductor, taking the heat off his client. Pogba just goes about his work, training and playing, as Raiola goes about his, plotting and negotiating. With Kane, all the focus is on him. Those who believe England captains get the clichéd “easy ride” ignore the history of David Beckham, John Terry and Wayne Rooney, frequently vilified, their personal and professional lives splashed, often trashed, across front and back pages.

This hypothesis that foreign players are more harshly critiqued is a seized-on narrative simply not borne out by fact. Eric Cantona and Luis Suárez were voted footballer of the year by the nation’s writers after their respective kung-fu and racist controversies. Terry’s hopes of a smooth entry into management are, rightly, still questioned for his offensive comment to Anton Ferdinand. People blur social issues with footballing. The English media have not voted for an Englishman for the esteemed Ballon d’Or since Michael Owen 20 years ago.
When Kane originally floated the idea of exiting Spurs, during an Instagram chat with Jamie Redknapp in March 2020, The Times savaged him for daring to focus on his future when the whole country was fighting for its future, during the first ravages of a pandemic.

Kane’s wish for trophies is understandable, but he should be showing the club that nurtured him greater respect

The Times highlighted yesterday that all of England’s starting Euro 2020 finalists reported for duty in time for the Premier League. Kane didn’t. He’s heavily scrutinised and his behaviour rightly slated. Wait for the press to get stuck into Gareth Southgate and Kane before next month’s World Cup qualifiers. Kane is England captain, an inspiration for a fine generation of young players and a role model for millions, and has to remember to start behaving like a leader.
If Kane is to leave for Manchester City, and his wish for trophies is understandable, then he should make sure he leaves through the front door, head held high, not skulking sheepishly down the fire exit at the back. Leave with dignity and reputation intact.



Hitherto lauded as the ultimate pro, and a decent guy with principles, Kane cannot seriously be enjoying acting so selfishly, disrupting, distracting, developing a saga to force a move, as if Spurs’ streetwise chairman Daniel Levy would ever fall for that. Kane must squirm at hearing those who once cheered his name now jeer it, and having his fabulous body of club work over the past decade denigrated, those 222 goals in 336 appearances devalued. “Are you watching, Harry Kane?” Are you watching your legacy diminished?
Kane cannot appreciate reading the debate about how Spurs could even possibly be better off without him in the quick-moving new world of Nuno Espírito Santo. Even if he now backtracks, and commits to honouring at least the next year of his contract, Kane’s conduct will never be forgotten. Who ate all the humble pie? That difficult-to-digest dish for Kane will still not be enough to win back many Spurs fans angered by his stance.

The articulate Richards was forthright in his views on the Kane situation

His desire to upgrade to City cannot be held against an ambitious footballer. He’d be working with Pep Guardiola. He’d learn even more about the game. Also, it’s now or never. The “stay one more year” narrative is still strange. Erling Haaland, 22 next July, comes properly on the market next summer (with a £65 million release clause) and the prolific Borussia Dortmund striker will be an even more attractive proposition than a 29-year-old Kane. Kylian Mbappé, 23 in December, will be a free agent (unless PSG have convinced him to stay). Kane has to move now.
Fair enough. But treat Spurs with more respect. They are the club that nurtured him, that worked on his puppy fat, that provided a platform for his ferocious will to win. Kane has done great things for Spurs, but so have they for him. So has Son Heung-min. So did Mauricio Pochettino. So has Levy with past contracts. So have the fans with their unconditional backing for “one of our own” until now. As the siren screams, Kane needs to rethink his strategy.

Absolutely spot on this article. Kane is a role model as England captain. Great message this sends out to the young footballers coming through. I understand him wanting to leave (even if I hate it), but it's the way he has gone about it that grates me. Whoever wrote this needs applauding. Fair play and respect to them for bringing it up.

 

[SpartanSpur]

It almost needs a siren to alert everyone. As ever when Graeme Souness, Gary Neville and Micah Richards gather to debate issues pitchside or in the studio, the audience is royally entertained and richly informed. Sky’s insistence on continued social distancing between the feisty trio appears advisable as hackles rise. So it was on Sunday at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium when Harry Kane’s future was again on the agenda with noisy pundits knocking seven decibels out of each other.

Souness and Neville were born bristling, the pugilist trait underpinning their glittering careers. Richards is mellower but still fights his corner with a forthright passion. When Paul Pogba’s name and his future were lobbed into the Kane discussion, it was like the first time nitro and glycerine were introduced to each other. Sparks flew.


Souness has a pronounced problem with Pogba and his perceived commitment levels, slightly overlooking his four assists for Manchester United the day before, let alone the Frenchman’s World Cup medal. Neville considers anyone contemplating quitting United as a renegade requiring challenging, even counselling, possibly confining. Red Nev also has an issue with Pogba’s agent, Mino Raiola, whose name alone causes palpitations inside Carrington.

Richards, a confident, welcome new voice among such media monarchs, argued that double standards were at play over the respective headline treatment of Pogba and Kane. Richards wasn’t playing the race card, although many on social media do. Richards simply articulated the view that Kane was getting off lightly. “Kane’s not turned up for training and we call him a saint,” Richards said. “Pogba’s never said he wanted to leave and he’s getting abuse.” Pogba, arguably, has even more cause to ponder his future with one year remaining on his contract. Kane has three.
It made for great television, but also required further analysis. The situations, and personalities, are slightly different. Raiola operates as a lightning conductor, taking the heat off his client. Pogba just goes about his work, training and playing, as Raiola goes about his, plotting and negotiating. With Kane, all the focus is on him. Those who believe England captains get the clichéd “easy ride” ignore the history of David Beckham, John Terry and Wayne Rooney, frequently vilified, their personal and professional lives splashed, often trashed, across front and back pages.

This hypothesis that foreign players are more harshly critiqued is a seized-on narrative simply not borne out by fact. Eric Cantona and Luis Suárez were voted footballer of the year by the nation’s writers after their respective kung-fu and racist controversies. Terry’s hopes of a smooth entry into management are, rightly, still questioned for his offensive comment to Anton Ferdinand. People blur social issues with footballing. The English media have not voted for an Englishman for the esteemed Ballon d’Or since Michael Owen 20 years ago.
When Kane originally floated the idea of exiting Spurs, during an Instagram chat with Jamie Redknapp in March 2020, The Times savaged him for daring to focus on his future when the whole country was fighting for its future, during the first ravages of a pandemic.

Kane’s wish for trophies is understandable, but he should be showing the club that nurtured him greater respect

The Times highlighted yesterday that all of England’s starting Euro 2020 finalists reported for duty in time for the Premier League. Kane didn’t. He’s heavily scrutinised and his behaviour rightly slated. Wait for the press to get stuck into Gareth Southgate and Kane before next month’s World Cup qualifiers. Kane is England captain, an inspiration for a fine generation of young players and a role model for millions, and has to remember to start behaving like a leader.
If Kane is to leave for Manchester City, and his wish for trophies is understandable, then he should make sure he leaves through the front door, head held high, not skulking sheepishly down the fire exit at the back. Leave with dignity and reputation intact.



Hitherto lauded as the ultimate pro, and a decent guy with principles, Kane cannot seriously be enjoying acting so selfishly, disrupting, distracting, developing a saga to force a move, as if Spurs’ streetwise chairman Daniel Levy would ever fall for that. Kane must squirm at hearing those who once cheered his name now jeer it, and having his fabulous body of club work over the past decade denigrated, those 222 goals in 336 appearances devalued. “Are you watching, Harry Kane?” Are you watching your legacy diminished?
Kane cannot appreciate reading the debate about how Spurs could even possibly be better off without him in the quick-moving new world of Nuno Espírito Santo. Even if he now backtracks, and commits to honouring at least the next year of his contract, Kane’s conduct will never be forgotten. Who ate all the humble pie? That difficult-to-digest dish for Kane will still not be enough to win back many Spurs fans angered by his stance.

The articulate Richards was forthright in his views on the Kane situation

His desire to upgrade to City cannot be held against an ambitious footballer. He’d be working with Pep Guardiola. He’d learn even more about the game. Also, it’s now or never. The “stay one more year” narrative is still strange. Erling Haaland, 22 next July, comes properly on the market next summer (with a £65 million release clause) and the prolific Borussia Dortmund striker will be an even more attractive proposition than a 29-year-old Kane. Kylian Mbappé, 23 in December, will be a free agent (unless PSG have convinced him to stay). Kane has to move now.
Fair enough. But treat Spurs with more respect. They are the club that nurtured him, that worked on his puppy fat, that provided a platform for his ferocious will to win. Kane has done great things for Spurs, but so have they for him. So has Son Heung-min. So did Mauricio Pochettino. So has Levy with past contracts. So have the fans with their unconditional backing for “one of our own” until now. As the siren screams, Kane needs to rethink his strategy.

It's a good piece but I guess the issue is that Kane 'probably' had to do this to even get Levy to contemplate a sale. So in a way I do have some sympathy but the reality is that City have not offered any where near enough to date, especially after their £100m luxury signing of Grealish.

It's a complex subject for sure. Personally I wish he had more respect for the club and didn't buy into the 'now or never' thing so much. I bet City said 'now or never' last year too. Whilst Haaland and Mbappe will be on the market next summer, they can only go to one club each. That may not necessarily be City. Bayern, Madrid. Utd, PSG, possibly even Chelsea and Liverpool will be in the market for these strikers. That's ignoring Barca and Juve if they sort their money issues out. If he genuinely thinks he's got another 5-6 years left then wind that contract down for another year or two and leave on a cut price deal. The Greaves record was there to be beaten.

I blame City for being a prick tease and tapping up our player without the cash (so far) to back it up. I blame Kane for trashing his legacy so easily after wilfully signing a 6 year deal and hiring a inexperienced family member as his agent. All for some participation medals at an oil club in the same league. I don't blame Levy (this time!) for simply having the club's best interests at heart. As always it's the fans of the club who suffer most.

 

[KingNick]

It's a good piece but I guess the issue is that Kane had to do this to even get Levy to contemplate a sale. So in a way I do have some sympathy but the reality is that City have not offered any where near enough to date, especially after their £100m luxury signing of Grealish.

I strongly disagree with this bit and think it shows where CK's inexperience/incompetence has come into play. HK did not have to do this, he just thought he did - probably because he and CK decided between them that this is how the game works and that other players have done it before and got their moves. What they failed to appreciate is that there are other ways to do things that can also work. For every Modric there's a Carrick. Going on strike versus a transfer request and an obvious desire to go / not train to the required levels.

What they should have realised was that you don't go pushing DL into a position he doesn't want to so publicly.

 

[Tucker]

I know that you've not posted since this, and it was 60-odd pages ago and likely other far cleverer posters than me have already commented, but on the off-chance you're still reading and they haven't, but I feel too strongly to avoid chiming in:

Your comparison doesn't hold water. Discussing the relative merits of the different brands of a consumer good, like a phone, is not the same thing, because those entities are competing in a comparable manner. If one compares Samsung and Apple and mentions the use of Chinese sweatshop labour, they're both doing it - so that's a common factor that isn't germane to the conversation as there is no variability.

The difference is that your club's owners are the ruling family of a regime that destroys lives, that dehumanises human beings and every single microsecond of entertainment, success, moments observed bringing supposed glory to the name of your club is steeped in the blood of innocents. And the primary objective of your club's owners is to try and wipe the blood from their hands by having individuals such as yourself think kindly of them for the joy they have provided you. No other PL chairman has that particular characteristic.

Let me ask you this: if you witnessed someone mug another in the street and then walk into a shop and buy you a Mars bar with the money they'd just robbed, how comfortable would you be taking the chocolate? Would you be quite so eager to discuss the relative merits of Mars over Twix?

That's not to say that the other club chairmen are all squeaky-clean characters, but none of the others (not even Abramovich) has built their wealth off the back of a zealously pursued murderous, racist, sexist and homophobic philosophy and then using that money to try and cover their reprehensible behaviour. Certainly Abramovich is guilty of robbing the wealth of people during a febrile period of post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and he should be condemned for that (and I do condemn him for it), but he still didn't devolve so far as to engage in what the Al-Nahyans do, which they do willingly, happily and with the utmost zeal.

So, yes, any discussion that involves City, in any capacity, must include the owner's record of extrajudicial murder, the disappearances of people whose only sin is their political dissent, the repression of anyone who dares to be attracted to a member of the same sex, or has the temerity to be born with female genitalia, or is so cheeky as to have been born in a different country.

You may wish to divorce yourself from it. You may wish to cover your eyes and ignore precisely what your club has become - a vehicle designed to provide cover for the worst humanity has to offer. We've actually seen members of a Man City forum trying to claim that condemning City is racist; the cognitive dissonance in evidence there when City's owners are themselves among the most actively and viciously racist people in the world and actually put their bankrupt ideas into practice, is breathtaking. That's precisely what your owners love to see - normal human beings, who would ordinarily be sickened by the horrors the Al-Nahyans perpetuate, rushing to their defence, because their criminality happens to have helped the club lift some trophies.

Maybe it's understandable: sometimes some things are too big for us to care about. Fine. But if you don't want to involve yourself in that aspect, you can't deny that the fundamental issue exists nor that everything Man City does as a club is designed for a specific objective; therefore any discussion of the club's activities must include that objective, as any club's overall objective is implicitly part of a conversation about their activities. Trying to divorce the horror of what the Al-Nahyans are just because its uncomfortable is simply denying the truth.

The Al-Nahyans don't want to buy Kane only because he would increase the club's success. They want him because it will help perpetuate their objective of deflecting attention from the inhumanity they perpetrate far away in their gilded desert gulag.

Apologies to all for restirring an old post, but I really feel very strongly about this aspect of Man City's current existence.

This might be the best post of the thread so far.

 

[sausage]

It's a good piece but I guess the issue is that Kane had to do this to even get Levy to contemplate a sale. So in a way I do have some sympathy but the reality is that City have not offered any where near enough to date, especially after their £100m luxury signing of Grealish.

It's a complex subject for sure. Personally I wish he had more respect for the club and didn't buy into the 'now or never' thing so much. I bet City said 'now or never' last year too. Whilst Haaland and Mbappe will be on the market next summer, they can only go to one club each. That may not necessarily be City. Bayern, Madrid. Utd, PSG, possibly even Chelsea and Liverpool will be in the market for these strikers. That's ignoring Barca and Juve if they sort their money issues out. If he genuinely thinks he's got another 5-6 years left then wind that contract down for another year or two and leave on a cut price deal. The Greaves record was there to be beaten.

I blame City for being a prick tease and tapping up our player without the cash (so far) to back it up. I blame Kane for trashing his legacy so easily after wilfully signing a 6 year deal and hiring a inexperienced family member as his agent. All for some participation medals at an oil club in the same league. I don't blame Levy (this time!) for simply having the club's best interests at heart. As always it's the fans of the club who suffer most.

I really don't know who exactly led Kane to believe that £100m was 'the fee'. In retrospect, with the Gary Neville interview, he seemed convinced that was the number. City's bids seem to reflect that, too.

You'd have to be a bit dense to actually think that it would be that low. Maybe if it was said at the beginning of his contract, and that contract was before Neymar's move that changed the ceiling for fees, but it was the season after that. So odd.

 

[rez9000]

This might be the best post of the thread so far.

Thanks, Tucks - that's very kind.

 

[SpartanSpur]

I strongly disagree with this bit and think it shows where CK's inexperience/incompetence has come into play. HK did not have to do this, he just thought he did - probably because he and CK decided between them that this is how the game works and that other players have done it before and got their moves. What they failed to appreciate is that there are other ways to do things that can also work. For every Modric there's a Carrick. Going on strike versus a transfer request and an obvious desire to go / not train to the required levels.

What they should have realised was that you don't go pushing DL into a position he doesn't want to so publicly.

Do you honestly think if Kane was being a good boy and keeping his head down we'd even be answering the phone to City? I'm not so sure about that.

He certainly could have gone a better way about it, maybe coming out publicly and explaining his feelings (and putting in a formal transfer request) and why he feels the move is right, but showing far more respect for the club and honouring his contract in the process.

It's a tricky situation for me. We all know Daniel Levy, IMHO the only reason City have been given a price is because the heat around the transfer is all on Kane and his brother (and he probably has Fabio and Nuno urging him to sell after the way he acted).

 

[ernie78]

I really don't know who exactly led Kane to believe that £100m was 'the fee'. In retrospect, with the Gary Neville interview, he seemed convinced that was the number. City's bids seem to reflect that, too.

You'd have to be a bit dense to actually think that it would be that low. Maybe if it was said at the beginning of his contract, and that contract was before Neymar's move that changed the ceiling for fees, but it was the season after that. So odd.

Part of me feels he doesn’t want the weight of a £150m-200m price tag on his shoulders

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

I know that you've not posted since this, and it was 60-odd pages ago and likely other far cleverer posters than me have already commented, but on the off-chance you're still reading and they haven't, but I feel too strongly to avoid chiming in:

Your comparison doesn't hold water. Discussing the relative merits of the different brands of a consumer good, like a phone, is not the same thing, because those entities are competing in a comparable manner. If one compares Samsung and Apple and mentions the use of Chinese sweatshop labour, they're both doing it - so that's a common factor that isn't germane to the conversation as there is no variability.

The difference is that your club's owners are the ruling family of a regime that destroys lives, that dehumanises human beings and every single microsecond of entertainment, success, moments observed bringing supposed glory to the name of your club is steeped in the blood of innocents. And the primary objective of your club's owners is to try and wipe the blood from their hands by having individuals such as yourself think kindly of them for the joy they have provided you. No other PL chairman has that particular characteristic.

Let me ask you this: if you witnessed someone mug another in the street and then walk into a shop and buy you a Mars bar with the money they'd just robbed, how comfortable would you be taking the chocolate? Would you be quite so eager to discuss the relative merits of Mars over Twix?

That's not to say that the other club chairmen are all squeaky-clean characters, but none of the others (not even Abramovich) has built their wealth off the back of a zealously pursued murderous, racist, sexist and homophobic philosophy and then using that money to try and cover their reprehensible behaviour. Certainly Abramovich is guilty of robbing the wealth of people during a febrile period of post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and he should be condemned for that (and I do condemn him for it), but he still didn't devolve so far as to engage in what the Al-Nahyans do, which they do willingly, happily and with the utmost zeal.

So, yes, any discussion that involves City, in any capacity, must include the owner's record of extrajudicial murder, the disappearances of people whose only sin is their political dissent, the repression of anyone who dares to be attracted to a member of the same sex, or has the temerity to be born with female genitalia, or is so cheeky as to have been born in a different country.

You may wish to divorce yourself from it. You may wish to cover your eyes and ignore precisely what your club has become - a vehicle designed to provide cover for the worst humanity has to offer. We've actually seen members of a Man City forum trying to claim that condemning City is racist; the cognitive dissonance in evidence there when City's owners are themselves among the most actively and viciously racist people in the world and actually put their bankrupt ideas into practice, is breathtaking. That's precisely what your owners love to see - normal human beings, who would ordinarily be sickened by the horrors the Al-Nahyans perpetuate, rushing to their defence, because their criminality happens to have helped the club lift some trophies.

Maybe it's understandable: sometimes some things are too big for us to care about. Fine. But if you don't want to involve yourself in that aspect, you can't deny that the fundamental issue exists nor that everything Man City does as a club is designed for a specific objective; therefore any discussion of the club's activities must include that objective, as any club's overall objective is implicitly part of a conversation about their activities. Trying to divorce the horror of what the Al-Nahyans are just because its uncomfortable is simply denying the truth.

The Al-Nahyans don't want to buy Kane only because he would increase the club's success. They want him because it will help perpetuate their objective of deflecting attention from the inhumanity they perpetrate far away in their gilded desert gulag.

Apologies to all for restirring an old post, but I really feel very strongly about this aspect of Man City's current existence.

Well done for having the courage to say this.

Too many people will think, but this is football; can’t we forget the politics for once?

But as you explain so clearly, this is exactly what the Al-Nahyans are asking us to say, bribing us to say in the case of City fans, and in saying it we are complicit in their brutal inhumanity. So we mustn’t say it, despite the derision that arguing against often attracts.

 

[sausage]

Part of me feels he doesn’t want the weight of a £150m-200m price tag on his shoulders

He'll never be 'elite', then. That kind of thing is viagra to Ronaldo. You don't win Ballon D'ors unless you believe you're the best footballer in the world.

 

[carpediem991]

I don't have the feeling we are on a good way regarding Lautaro or Vlahovic. If we can not seal one of them we can not sell Kane this summer...

 

[KingNick]

Do you honestly think if Kane was being a good boy and keeping his head down we'd even be answering the phone to City? I'm not so sure about that.

He certainly could have gone a better way about it, maybe coming out publicly and explaining his feelings (and putting in a formal transfer request) and why he feels the move is right, but showing far more respect for the club and honouring his contract in the process.

It's a tricky situation for me. We all know Daniel Levy, IMHO the only reason City have been given a price is because the heat around the transfer is all on Kane and his brother (and he probably has Fabio and Nuno urging him to sell after the way he acted).

Well i didn't say be a good boy did i? I said put in a transfer request and not put the right effort in during training - which is what Grealish admits he did.

And yes, the phone call would have been answered and a deal could have been brokered without numbers being mentioned in the press. I actually think a deal would have been done at a lower amount (though with bigger contingencies/more favourable payment terms) than DL is now seemingly demanding rather than the stand-off that CK has now created.

 

[YB123]

I really don't know who exactly led Kane to believe that £100m was 'the fee'. In retrospect, with the Gary Neville interview, he seemed convinced that was the number. City's bids seem to reflect that, too.

You'd have to be a bit dense to actually think that it would be that low. Maybe if it was said at the beginning of his contract, and that contract was before Neymar's move that changed the ceiling for fees, but it was the season after that. So odd.

Not saying you're wrong because I also was lead to believe £100m bid was made but I'm pretty sure Ally Gold and PO have both adamantly said no bid has even been made for Kane yet.

 

[sausage]

I don't have the feeling we are on a good way regarding Lautaro or Vlahovic. If we can not seal one of them we can not sell Kane this summer...

That'll possibly down to Fab/Hitch to decide if a (moody) Kane in the hand is worth £200m in a bush

 

[Coyboy]

I know that you've not posted since this, and it was 60-odd pages ago and likely other far cleverer posters than me have already commented, but on the off-chance you're still reading and they haven't, but I feel too strongly to avoid chiming in:

Your comparison doesn't hold water. Discussing the relative merits of the different brands of a consumer good, like a phone, is not the same thing, because those entities are competing in a comparable manner. If one compares Samsung and Apple and mentions the use of Chinese sweatshop labour, they're both doing it - so that's a common factor that isn't germane to the conversation as there is no variability.

The difference is that your club's owners are the ruling family of a regime that destroys lives, that dehumanises human beings and every single microsecond of entertainment, success, moments observed bringing supposed glory to the name of your club is steeped in the blood of innocents. And the primary objective of your club's owners is to try and wipe the blood from their hands by having individuals such as yourself think kindly of them for the joy they have provided you. No other PL chairman has that particular characteristic.

Let me ask you this: if you witnessed someone mug another in the street and then walk into a shop and buy you a Mars bar with the money they'd just robbed, how comfortable would you be taking the chocolate? Would you be quite so eager to discuss the relative merits of Mars over Twix?

That's not to say that the other club chairmen are all squeaky-clean characters, but none of the others (not even Abramovich) has built their wealth off the back of a zealously pursued murderous, racist, sexist and homophobic philosophy and then using that money to try and cover their reprehensible behaviour. Certainly Abramovich is guilty of robbing the wealth of people during a febrile period of post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and he should be condemned for that (and I do condemn him for it), but he still didn't devolve so far as to engage in what the Al-Nahyans do, which they do willingly, happily and with the utmost zeal.

So, yes, any discussion that involves City, in any capacity, must include the owner's record of extrajudicial murder, the disappearances of people whose only sin is their political dissent, the repression of anyone who dares to be attracted to a member of the same sex, or has the temerity to be born with female genitalia, or is so cheeky as to have been born in a different country.

You may wish to divorce yourself from it. You may wish to cover your eyes and ignore precisely what your club has become - a vehicle designed to provide cover for the worst humanity has to offer. We've actually seen members of a Man City forum trying to claim that condemning City is racist; the cognitive dissonance in evidence there when City's owners are themselves among the most actively and viciously racist people in the world and actually put their bankrupt ideas into practice, is breathtaking. That's precisely what your owners love to see - normal human beings, who would ordinarily be sickened by the horrors the Al-Nahyans perpetuate, rushing to their defence, because their criminality happens to have helped the club lift some trophies.

Maybe it's understandable: sometimes some things are too big for us to care about. Fine. But if you don't want to involve yourself in that aspect, you can't deny that the fundamental issue exists nor that everything Man City does as a club is designed for a specific objective; therefore any discussion of the club's activities must include that objective, as any club's overall objective is implicitly part of a conversation about their activities. Trying to divorce the horror of what the Al-Nahyans are just because its uncomfortable is simply denying the truth.

The Al-Nahyans don't want to buy Kane only because he would increase the club's success. They want him because it will help perpetuate their objective of deflecting attention from the inhumanity they perpetrate far away in their gilded desert gulag.

Apologies to all for restirring an old post, but I really feel very strongly about this aspect of Man City's current existence.

Phenomenal post.

Royal Mail quality.

 

[YB123]

I don't have the feeling we are on a good way regarding Lautaro or Vlahovic. If we can not seal one of them we can not sell Kane this summer...

I think the Lautaro deal is dead in the water now. Vlahovic is ours if Atletico are not as serious as mentioned.

 

[LeSoupeKitchen]

I know that you've not posted since this, and it was 60-odd pages ago and likely other far cleverer posters than me have already commented, but on the off-chance you're still reading and they haven't, but I feel too strongly to avoid chiming in:

Your comparison doesn't hold water. Discussing the relative merits of the different brands of a consumer good, like a phone, is not the same thing, because those entities are competing in a comparable manner. If one compares Samsung and Apple and mentions the use of Chinese sweatshop labour, they're both doing it - so that's a common factor that isn't germane to the conversation as there is no variability.

The difference is that your club's owners are the ruling family of a regime that destroys lives, that dehumanises human beings and every single microsecond of entertainment, success, moments observed bringing supposed glory to the name of your club is steeped in the blood of innocents. And the primary objective of your club's owners is to try and wipe the blood from their hands by having individuals such as yourself think kindly of them for the joy they have provided you. No other PL chairman has that particular characteristic.

Let me ask you this: if you witnessed someone mug another in the street and then walk into a shop and buy you a Mars bar with the money they'd just robbed, how comfortable would you be taking the chocolate? Would you be quite so eager to discuss the relative merits of Mars over Twix?

That's not to say that the other club chairmen are all squeaky-clean characters, but none of the others (not even Abramovich) has built their wealth off the back of a zealously pursued murderous, racist, sexist and homophobic philosophy and then using that money to try and cover their reprehensible behaviour. Certainly Abramovich is guilty of robbing the wealth of people during a febrile period of post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and he should be condemned for that (and I do condemn him for it), but he still didn't devolve so far as to engage in what the Al-Nahyans do, which they do willingly, happily and with the utmost zeal.

So, yes, any discussion that involves City, in any capacity, must include the owner's record of extrajudicial murder, the disappearances of people whose only sin is their political dissent, the repression of anyone who dares to be attracted to a member of the same sex, or has the temerity to be born with female genitalia, or is so cheeky as to have been born in a different country.

You may wish to divorce yourself from it. You may wish to cover your eyes and ignore precisely what your club has become - a vehicle designed to provide cover for the worst humanity has to offer. We've actually seen members of a Man City forum trying to claim that condemning City is racist; the cognitive dissonance in evidence there when City's owners are themselves among the most actively and viciously racist people in the world and actually put their bankrupt ideas into practice, is breathtaking. That's precisely what your owners love to see - normal human beings, who would ordinarily be sickened by the horrors the Al-Nahyans perpetuate, rushing to their defence, because their criminality happens to have helped the club lift some trophies.

Maybe it's understandable: sometimes some things are too big for us to care about. Fine. But if you don't want to involve yourself in that aspect, you can't deny that the fundamental issue exists nor that everything Man City does as a club is designed for a specific objective; therefore any discussion of the club's activities must include that objective, as any club's overall objective is implicitly part of a conversation about their activities. Trying to divorce the horror of what the Al-Nahyans are just because its uncomfortable is simply denying the truth.

The Al-Nahyans don't want to buy Kane only because he would increase the club's success. They want him because it will help perpetuate their objective of deflecting attention from the inhumanity they perpetrate far away in their gilded desert gulag.

Apologies to all for restirring an old post, but I really feel very strongly about this aspect of Man City's current existence.

Amazing post. I thought I was still reading something copied from the Times.

 

[SpartanSpur]

I really don't know who exactly led Kane to believe that £100m was 'the fee'. In retrospect, with the Gary Neville interview, he seemed convinced that was the number. City's bids seem to reflect that, too.

You'd have to be a bit dense to actually think that it would be that low. Maybe if it was said at the beginning of his contract, and that contract was before Neymar's move that changed the ceiling for fees, but it was the season after that. So odd.

It was incredibly stupid in hindsight from both the Kane's and Man City. They all got so swept up in the idea of the deal no one took a step back and actually thought about Daniel Levy. Even if City pay up now it will be to save face and because they have been backed into a corner. If the Kane's went to them with a ballpark price of £140-150m it probably would never gone past that! I guess City probably also saw their part-ex opportunities as a fall back in doing the deal, but again thinking Levy would accept ridiculous valuations for unwanted players is also idiocy.

 

[PCozzie]

This article in the iNews sums it up perfectly (worth reading the entire article)

Link: Harry Kane risks destroying part of what made him special if he ditches Tottenham for Man City

"If Kane does join Manchester City, you wonder whether he has fully comprehended how his reputation will change forever. Or, to be more pointed, how much of Kane’s emergence and subsequent consistency was founded upon his presence at his boyhood club, his ability to be the focal point of the team and the enduring love of the supporters who were proud to call him theirs? He was them and they were him. Those two threads have been untangled until Kane stands alone.

Gone will be the blue-eyed boy and the one-club man. Gone will be Kane’s connection with supporters that extended beyond a voracious desire to win the biggest trophies in the game. Gone will be the stereotype of Kane as the selfless captain who so desperately wanted to win with his mates in a particular stadium. He will be simply the latest mega-signing striker, the gun for hire bought by the richest club in the world because they could. Gone will be the mythical striker who rose out of nowhere, replaced by a tangible asset and a large number on the balance sheet. Gone will be “Tottenham’s Harry Kane”; just “Harry Kane”."

Much to agree with there, but I'm still struck by the amount of people in the press, and in the media, who pay a lot of attention to everything football who still seem to think Harry Kane is Spurs' captain.

ETA: Actually, this is why Kane's behaviour this summer is so incongruous. He's built such an image of himself that it's impossible to believe he isn't the captain of Spurs. He has acted in every way like a captain would, then chucked it all in the bin for the pursuit of trinkets at a club, as @rez9000 post powerfully describes, that is attempting to whitewash it's owners' tyrannical behaviour.

 

[SpartanSpur]

Well i didn't say be a good boy did i? I said put in a transfer request and not put the right effort in during training - which is what Grealish admits he did.

And yes, the phone call would have been answered and a deal could have been brokered without numbers being mentioned in the press. I actually think a deal would have been done at a lower amount (though with bigger contingencies/more favourable payment terms) than DL is now seemingly demanding rather than the stand-off that CK has now created.

I guess we'll never know for sure. I just think Kane is so important to the club (in football and commercial terms) - and Levy especially hates selling star players to PL rivals - so he'd always do everything he could to keep him whilst he has the high ground of the contract. I suspect the main issue is that City just seemingly don't want to come anywhere near what Kane is worth to us as a club.

I'd have been surprised if Levy would accept something like say £120-125m (which seems to be their current limit) just because Kane went about it respectfully. Even fans like myself who do/did sympathise somewhat with Harry would probably put the sweet spot on his value at around £150m, and we don't really consider the commercial side of things like Levy does.