Harry Kane

Flashp said:

Yeah, the thread is full of 20/20 hindsight. Add to that some fact distortion.

Value and price are two different things. The seller prices the asset from its inherent value to him. If a prospective buyer doesn't agree with the value, then there is no basis for a deal to be made. The market doesn't determine the price, unless the seller is looking to sell in the first place.

Ultimately it's Levy's prerogative to decide the value of the clubs assets, including HK. This falls under the business judgment rule. The value consists of more than his direct contribution on the pitch, and after all Levy valued him higher than what City we're ultimately willing to pay.

You can criticize Levy for his value judgment if you want, but it's really quite simple why it panned out as it did.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Not to mention the fact that it sends a terrible message to sell our prized asset at a relatively cheap price. We need other clubs to understand that - in the future - if they want to take one of our best players it’s (a) going to be a massive fucking ball-ache for them and (b) they better be prepared to pay up, big time, otherwise no dice.

Any commodity is only worth as much as the market is willing to pay. Just who can afford to buy Kane in the current market, and what is he worth given players like Haaland at the top end of the market, Watkins in the middle and Ings somewhere below that, in value terms?

We have to assume that Kane wants to go somewhere that can afford to challenge for trophies, which in the UK means City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Man U, France only PSG, in Spain I think only Real Madrid maybe Athletico. Germany it’s just Bayern Munich.

How many of those clubs actually need a forward? Bayern probably as Lewandowski wants out. Would they be willing to pay 100m? They have a record of picking up players on frees (Lewandowski, Goretzka) they don’t often bid huge amounts but they could…

Why would any of those clubs bid 100m for Kane when they can have younger, fitter, hungrier players for the same or probably less? Haaland is available for 75m in 2022!

The top teams and coaches have worked out our to deal with Kane now and he's slow in changing or upping his game, both at club and international level. If he wants to reach Lewandowski levels he needs to evolve; I think he's capable of that but at the moment his stock is falling.

Tottenham_God said:

If Newcastle offer 200m plus Saint-Maximin I think we reluctantly agree

Click to expand...

No rip their hands off before they change their minds

dontcallme said:

Surely it's a bit of both. If the selling club put a price that is too high for anyone to match it then they've mispriced. If the buying club offers a fee that the selling club sees as not worth it to sell then they've underpriced him.

Looking for value and worth in the modern football market is mission impossible anyway.

Click to expand...

I think that depends on the player and the players availability.

Simon Jordan: He's been out of sorts for about 6 months now

which puts us right around mid April, the Neville Interview. Correlation <> causation but it's a hell of a coincedence.

Bluto Blutarsky said:

You have that completely backwards.

Click to expand...

I think people are confusing "Market Value" and whether a club has to sell at market value.


If Spurs had said they won't sell Kane for less than £500m - would that make his value £500m? Of course not. (Unless some team were willing to pay that amount.)

Impressive how he's seamlessly taken his club form into the international stage.

archiewasking said:

Impressive how he's seamlessly taken his club form into the international stage.

Click to expand...

TBH that's worrying as it shows he's not right in his mind right now.
I'm not sure even if he should start for us this weekend- if only we'd signed another striker last summer

Ron Burgundy said:

He should have been sold. It was so bloody obvious. While still a good striker, he's becoming stuck in a rut with us and his value will just continue to decline.

I am amazed it wasn't clearer to Levy et al, and that they didn't find a price. No way will we get what we could have in the summer now.

Such a shame. Should have cashed in

Click to expand...

agree totally, just add it to yet more poor management at the top of the club.

what did we ever stand to gain by keeping him for another season? even with kane, this squad just isn't at the level required and we don't have the means to put enough good players around him so what was the point in hanging on to him for another season when by the end of it we're very likely going to find ourselves in exactly the same position ... just with a player who is another year older and another year closer to his contract ending. his value was only ever going to go down regardless so surely the summer was the time to sell. you see it particularly in american sports where you have an uncompetitive team with a star player and they trade them for future prospects to a team that wants to win now, obviously it doesn't work exactly like that in this sport but it's the same kind of principle.

for me i didn't even particularly care about his antics over the summer, it certainly wasn't palatable but even had he acted like a model professional i still wanted us to sell as i believe it was in our best interests to do so, certainly in the more medium to long term anyway. it was a chance to bring in 2 or 3 exciting new talents to build the next team around - something which could only realistically be funded by his sale. i think where i also differ is that i've always been very wary of his level rapidly declining, he plays a lot older than he is(hence why i think outside spurs circles his age was mentioned so much) and he's been through these spells before we he looks more like a 48 year old than 28. this time we can handily pass it off as him not being focused or sulking but there's also the possibility that it's actually just masking a natural decline. i said about alexis sanchez before but rooney was another one, hazard too(though more injury related), you have to account for these things happening and that's why i would have sold him. just look at the likes of toby, rose and eriksen, we hung onto them for a season or so too long and their value went through the floor, we're not a club that can absorb those kind of losses as we largely rely on the sale of players to regenerate funds.

Just ridiculous we kept him but never actually bothered to purchase a player who would create chances for him.

Gil is one for future but probably a stretch relying on him as main provider at moment.

Typical recruitment by us really, we did plug centre back and right back but to lose Bale and not bother with a creative playmaker to replace him was truly foolish.

Maybe we should try wing backs as might suit team more and means can play Son and Kane as a proper pairing.

Bluto Blutarsky said:

Because Levy is responsible for Spurs. Spurs would have been better off, without Kane.

Click to expand...

With hindsight perhaps this is the case, but how long does Kane have to dispel this theory? If he bags a brace v Newcastle, kick starts his season and ends up with 20 league goals + again will you hold firm to this statement? Or are you from now guaranteeing that this won’t happen?

Bluto Blutarsky said:

Levy should always be acting in the best interests of the club, and an honest assessment here should have led Levy to see that the Spurs/Kane relationship had already been maximized, and selling last summer represented the maximum return Levy was going to get for Kane.

Click to expand...

As others have pointed out, when Modric, Berbatov, Keane, Carrick, Bale and Walker wanted out, a mutually beneficial price was agreed and the deals happened. Surely this suggests that on this occasion its the buyer who weren’t willing to do what needed to be done, not the seller. Levy has form for being unable to shift players recently admittedly, but that’s been underperforming players on bigger contracts than they’d get elsewhere, not the league’s best player who’s attracting interest from a club that would double his salary happily.

Bluto Blutarsky said:

He will be worth less next summer, and Spurs will still have the same needs to fill.

Click to expand...

Once again are don’t know this, it all how on how he’s performed come the end of the season. Signs currently aren’t good but it only takes one match to turn it around. And with 2 years left on his deal, his value is still there.

And even if you are right and at most Kane fetches £90m next summer, if the most City would have gone to this Sunday is the purported £125m including add one, is that potential circa £35m really worth more than a year of a striker off this quality?

Bluto Blutarsky said:

I think the Newcastle sale, might be a life preserver for Levy/Spurs - it just depends on whether Kane will go there. Newcastle will have to overpay to get players in, so there is still a small sliver of hope

Click to expand...

And here I are, I would be delighted of Newcastle bid some stupid amount which took Kane up north and we could reinvest in several good players. I wanted him gone in the summer for the same reasons as you did, but equally, for all Enics mistakes this summer, I think this one is on the Sheikh.

Thewobbler said:

125m wouldnt have went far but it would have gone far enough to get us what we needed. Vlahovic and possibly 1- 2 other players. My concern is no one will come knocking on our door for kane again for over 1000m unless he hits top form, which im hoping he does.

Click to expand...

Potentially it would have, but as I said further up, you have to weight up what the value of 1 more season of Kane could bring IF, and I accept it’s an if, he gets back to normal. Has to happen soon admittedly, but if it happens then Enic will have been right not to knock on City’s doors to do a deal.

Bluto Blutarsky said:

I think people are confusing "Market Value" and whether a club has to sell at market value.


If Spurs had said they won't sell Kane for less than £500m - would that make his value £500m? Of course not. (Unless some team were willing to pay that amount.)

Click to expand...

Agree with you, there is a bit of confusion here.

Like the old saying on houses is, its only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. But at the same time it doesn't mean if someone wants to buy your house, one you don't want to sell, they can tell you its worth 25% less than what you think it is.

At the end of the day he didn't go because City didn't actually want him that much. It was in his and his brothers stupid little heads.

He has had dips in form before, but never this long and never has his all round game suffered so much. I think he needs to go see Ted Lasso's Doc.

I think the main reason Kane hasn’t been dropped is that when a previously class striker goes through a barren patch, you usually keep playing them in the hope the elusive next goal snaps them out of it and then they go on a scoring run.

IMHO it’s a bit different to any other position and that’s the reason we’re not seeing him benched. If he’s benched he can’t effectively play himself out of this bad spell and the downturn just continues.

i still can’t believe he threw away his status with us for a pipe dream move with 3 years left on his deal.

i essentially worshipped him, would defend him to the ends of the earth. he was my modern football hero. i’m sure i’m not alone in saying that as well.

and he just threw it all away. all for some tainted trophies that nobody would really respect anyways given the club that’s winning them. my heart breaks when i think about it.

I think Newcastle will massively overpay for him in January or the summer.
Just a hunch

Albertbarich said:

I think Newcastle will massively overpay for him in January or the summer.
Just a hunch

Click to expand...

No, they won't. Don't be silly. They will only have about £150m max to spend to stay within FFP rules, and they won't bid it all on Kane.

But the main reason is that Kane won't go there. It will take Newcastle at least 3 or 4, probably 5 years to become a real force capable of winning things. Regardless of the Saudi money, they still have to play within the rules and that means they will be spending up to their limit and then probably on their youth set-up which won't bear fruit for years.

Kane, allegedly, wants to leave to win things immediately. Newcastle are out of the picture as far as he's concerned.

It's Man City or bust.

HodisGawd said:

No, they won't. Don't be silly. They will only have about £150m max to spend to stay within FFP rules, and they won't bid it all on Kane.

But the main reason is that Kane won't go there. It will take Newcastle at least 3 or 4, probably 5 years to become a real force capable of winning things. Regardless of the Saudi money, they still have to play within the rules and that means they will be spending up to their limit and then probably on their youth set-up which won't bear fruit for years.

Kane, allegedly, wants to leave to win things immediately. Newcastle are out of the picture as far as he's concerned.

It's Man City or bust.

Click to expand...

They won't give a shit about ffp mate . They could buy the league if they wanted.

He's been in relatively bad form - that happens. The guys is absolutely top drawer and has a very resilient nature. It won't be long before we see him score in the league and get his form back.
I was upset and annoyed over the last 6-7 months with the circus that surrounded him and his. But for the time being he is our player and I strongly believe will find his form sooner rather than later.

spursfan77 said:

I'm constantly amazed by people's short memories. Amazed.

Click to expand...

Its a new football trend. I think it stems from FIFA and modern fantasy football to be honest. All these players having "in form" cards and their value being determined on what they did in the last week has passed into normal football fandom.