Harry Kane

[Trix]

I get your point. However, while he is an employee he is also apparently a fan - something that doesn't make sense when he's behaving this way. For example, I can't imagine Harry Winks acting this way (although I didn't see this coming from Kane either) - he seems like a man who is delighted to be playing for the club he supports. Granted, Kane is a much better player in his position than Winks is in his but for me Kane's behaviour is not that of a fan. Before all this I'd accepted that he was off, a part of me even felt like he deserved to be winning things (and I still believe that) but not like this. The disrespect is unacceptable. It's not even our fault - an acceptable bid comes in and we accept. There hasn't been one, so this behaviour is just plain odd.

"I love this club, but not more than money or easy medals".

Me? I'd happily spend my career at Spurs and win nothing knowing I gave my all for what is in all honesty my first love. (Don't tell the Mrs)

Absolute gold mate, proper laughed out loud.

 

[ballyconnellyid]

Oh dear god, are those city fans mad? So a businessman who runs a club within its own means and turnover is the one in the wrong?

View attachment 94069

And Zagreb is about a 100miles inland ?

 

[Erm33]

I think he should have to earn his place in the team. Let the guys who've been busting a gut in training play.

That's all well and good but he's our only recognized out and out senior striker. If he's not injured he should be expected to play in an important match.

 

[TheWook]

I get your point. However, while he is an employee he is also apparently a fan - something that doesn't make sense when he's behaving this way. For example, I can't imagine Harry Winks acting this way (although I didn't see this coming from Kane either) - he seems like a man who is delighted to be playing for the club he supports. Granted, Kane is a much better player in his position than Winks is in his but for me Kane's behaviour is not that of a fan. Before all this I'd accepted that he was off, a part of me even felt like he deserved to be winning things (and I still believe that) but not like this. The disrespect is unacceptable. It's not even our fault - an acceptable bid comes in and we accept. There hasn't been one, so this behaviour is just plain odd.

"I love this club, but not more than money or easy medals".

Me? I'd happily spend my career at Spurs and win nothing knowing I gave my all for what is in all honesty my first love. (Don't tell the Mrs)

He downed tools after that Real Madrid game

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

He's not our Captain. Hugo is.

Was replying to the guy who was referencing points about England not Spurs mate.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

Will he be picked if he isn't playing for his club?

My point was that once the window closes he will be fully focussed and the negative impact will not be there. If he isn't fully focussed he will not get picked and he will end up missing out on the 4 things I listed.

Yes he will, he is too good to not be picked and he will be keeping himself fit.

And either way he will either be playing for us or for City, in neither scenario will he not be playing at all for very long.

 

[SuperLuka]

And Zagreb is about a 100miles inland ?

I hardly think we'd send Uncle Joe in his yacht to impress a player from the Croatian league

 

[spurs mental]

Oh dear god, are those city fans mad? So a businessman who runs a club within its own means and turnover is the one in the wrong?

View attachment 94069

I'm signing up to Bluemoon tonight. This has pushed me over the edge.

 

[CornerPinDreamer]

They are a bit full on over at blue moon

 

[Tucker]

They are a bit full on over at blue moon

View attachment 94076

They seem such a happy bunch.

 

[spurs mental]

They are a bit full on over at blue moon

View attachment 94076

It's absolutely nuts isn't it. I know we all love our own clubs but I swear a ton of them are definitely "new money" fans.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

You seem to be wanting us to negotiate a fair price for Man City, rather than a fair price for ourselves. £130-150m or £120m + a player Man City wants to move on is not a fair price for us, but would be much better value for City than the recent Grealish and Lukaku deals.

What makes you think £175m is Levy's starting point for negotiations? I think it's more likely to be £200m+, with £175m being closer to the minimum sale price than the starting point.

Chelsea just paid almost £100m for Lukaku, which will inflate the value of other strikers - including Kane's and anyone we want to buy to replace him.
No-one who could adequately replace Kane is available (or willing to join a non-CL team), so this bumps up the price further. It wouldn't be in our interest to sell Kane for a fee that isn't sufficient to at least give us a chance of bringing our team back up to the level it was with Kane.

If Grealish (who plays in a position where City already had an embarrassment of depth and quality) is worth £100m to City, Kane (who plays in the position they most need to upgrade to take their team on to the next level) must be worth considerably more (2-3 times more?) to them.

Kane is the player City wants and needs. Last season, he got almost as many goals and assists (50) as Lukaku and Grealish managed between them (59).
If we had replaced Kane with Lukaku + Grealish (£197.5m of players), the stats suggest this would reduce the number of goals we score, once you factor in that one of our other attacking players (and their goals & assists) would need to be dropped for Grealish - so this would make our team worse. Moura (who half of SC thinks isn't good enough for us) got almost as many goals and assists as Grealish last season (17 vs. 19). Son (and Bale) both got more goals and assists than Grealish.

So, taking all of those factors into consideration, the "x amount" that Levy is holding out for probably is a fair price.

Good points mate but the point is about a fair price for both sides but mainly doing what is best for the club at this point in time.

Sometimes you need to sell players for slightly under their value or the asking price if it is for the greater good of the club and given the huge sum we'd receive then if it meant selling an unhappy extremely influential player for lets say £140m rather than keeping him and holding out for £175m and not selling him, I'd take the first option, especially given our current situation of needing to continue and finish this re-build asap.

IF the situation was different and we had a squad full of top top quality players in every position like say under Poch when we finished 2nd to Chelsea and our team was : Lloris, Walker, Toby, Jan, Rose, Dembele, Wanyama, Eriksen, Son, Dele, Kane, then sure that is a different story as we could barely upgrade that first XI we just needed a bit more strength in depth so in that case i'd absolutely be pushing for max value and holding very firm as we didn't need to sell at that time, however I think its important to take into consideration the context of our current situation when thinking about the value we could and should accept if we were to look to sell Kane.

Also Lukaku was what £95mil and Grealish was overpriced at £100m as he had a buy-out clause but he is younger than Kane.
I think at age 28 and with a few possibly injury risks that a fair price for both sides for Kane would be £150mil. We probably at a guess will be asking for £175-200m+ and City will be trying to get him for nearer to £100-130m. If in this situation the absolute max they'd go to is £130m or £100m & say Laporte or B.Silva then personally in our current situation I think it would be worth taking a deal like that.

It isn't exactly the same but if you take the Eriksen situation, we probably had offers of £50m for him a year and a half before we ended up selling him with 6 months left on his contract. If we hadn't had held out and tried to convince him to stay we could've re-couped a much better fee to re-invest, in the end we had a clearly unhappy player who would've directly or indirectly been effecting overall team morale and making the managers decisions more difficult AND we ended up losing out on about £40m worth of value that we could've sold him at.

Hopefully you see where i'm coming from on this.

 

[Hotspur33]

Good points mate but the point is about a fair price for both sides and doing what is best for the club.

Sometimes you need to sell players for slightly under their value or the asking price if it is for the greater good of the club and given the huge sum we'd receive then if it meant selling an unhappy extremely influential player for lets say £140m rather than keeping him and holding out for £175m and not selling him, I'd take the first option, especially given our current situation of needing to continue and finish this re-build asap.

IF the situation was different and we had a squad full of top top quality players in every position like say under Poch when we finished 2nd to Chelsea and our team was : Lloris, Walker, Toby, Jan, Rose, Dembele, Wanyama, Eriksen, Son, Dele, Kane, then sure that is a different story as we could barely upgrade that first XI we just needed a bit more strength in depth so in that case i'd absolutely be pushing for max value and holding very firm, however I think its important to take into consideration the context of our current situation when thinking about the value we could and should accept if we were to look to sell Kane.

Also Lukaku was what £95mil and Grealish was overpriced at £100m as he had a buy-out clause but he is younger than Kane.
I think at age 28 and with a few possibly injury risks that a fair price for both sides for Kane would be £150mil. We probably at a guess will be asking for £175-200m+ and City will be trying to get him for nearer to £100-130m. If in this situation the absolute max they'd go to is £130m or £100m & say Laporte or B.Silva then personally in our current situation I think it would be worth taking a deal like that.

It isn't exactly the same but if you take the Eriksen situation, we probably had offers of £50m for him a year and a half before we ended up selling him with 6 months left on his contract. If we hadn't have held out and tried to convince him to stay we could've re-coupled a much better fee to re-invest, in the end we had a clearly unhappy player who would've directly or indirectly been effecting overall team morale and making the managers decisions more difficult AND we ended up losing out on about £40m worth of value that we could've sold him at.

Hopefully you see where i'm coming from on this.

I see where you're coming from, however, we definitely don't want to sell Kane, and with his standing in the game, I think City need to overpay.
We are selling to a league rival, he is at his peak, premier League proven, home grown, he's as close to a sure thing as you can get, he's on a long contract. All those things to my mind, mean City have to overpay.
Even if next season we have to accept £75M or even let him run his contract down, he's cost us nothing.
If he was going abroad, it might be different.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

I see where you're coming from, however, we definitely don't want to sell Kane, and with his standing in the game, I think City need to overpay.
We are selling to a league rival, he is at his peak, premier League proven, home grown, he's as close to a sure thing as you can get, he's on a long contract. All those things to my mind, mean City have to overpay.
Even if next season we have to accept £75M or even let him run his contract down, he's cost us nothing.
If he was going abroad, it might be different.

Also all good points for sure, its a balancing act.

 

[Trent Crimm]

I’d let him work v City. As a bag checker.

perfect gig, three words. Yes, no, obviously ?

 

[Dakes]

They are a bit full on over at blue moon

View attachment 94076

Match threads should be a hoot.

 

[Aphex]

I'm imagining it's 1 - 1 on Sunday and Kane comes on with 15 minutes to go, pings one into the top corner from 25 yards, Pep's face zoomed in on Sky Sports, crowd go wild.

We win 2 - 1.

City bid 170 million the next day.

 

[nailsy]

That's all well and good but he's our only recognized out and out senior striker. If he's not injured he should be expected to play in an important match.

Part of the problem is that he expects to play no matter what. I think the message it sends to pick him again straight away would be more harmful than him missing a game or two. It's almost the champions League final scenario again. Others playing well in his absence, but Harry waltzing straight back into the team. We've played City without him before and done well.

 

[Dougal]

If he's on the bench/makes an appearance sunday, the body language experts will be out in force. I imagine that Sky will already have a few lined up already. It could reach an entire new level of bullshittery.

I’d love to get Shaka Hislop’s take on it.

 

[1882andallthat]

All ITK have said he wants to be involved on Sunday.

Would probably rather be wearing the non-white shirt though

If he doesn't want to wear the white shirt he can go in goal, he's done it before