Harry Kane | Bayern Munich player

Real Name said:
30 years old and no resale value. As good as he is that's not a good deal.
We'll be in a situation where we'll need to replace about 5 players in the same time.
Click to expand...
Why do posters keep mentioning this thing? Why would you want to sell one of the best strikers on the planet if he’s scoring goals for you? Unless you think he’s gonna flop or going to be unprofessional why would this resale value thing matters? If he still has the hunger which he has and scores the goals which you bet he would and gives 3-4 years which he can do easily, why bring up this moot point especially if taken over by the Qataris?

Do you think Fergie thought the same about Van persie or ten hag thought that when signing Casemiro?
 
mikeyt said:
Given his age Kane isn't my preferred choice over say Osimhen but I don't see us signing either to be honest. Napoli are as bad as Spurs if not worse for fleecing clubs and demanding huge fees. If we did get Harry I think he could have an RVP type impact though.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Also, signing only one striker would be idiocy and depending on martial even as a back up would top even that. I hope we sign someone like Ferguson along with Kane to completely revamp our striking options.
 
Real Name said:
30 years old and no resale value. As good as he is that's not a good deal.
We'll be in a situation where we'll need to replace about 5 players in the same time.
Click to expand...
Sort of understand your second point and for that reason we have to sign 2 strikers. Ferguson along with Kane would be perfect.
 
We never learn from our mistakes. It's one bad business after another. From Berbatov, Sanchez to Pogba, Sancho, Anthony and a whole lot more.

We can get another striker for what it's worth. If the valuation for Harry is too high and Tottenham doesn't bulge at their price, dodge the bullet and move on.

I won't be surprised if utd end up getting him for a hundred million plus after the likes of Real Madrid start showing interest.

For a player in his 30's with one year left in his contract for 80 million quid is just absurd.
Barca got Mr prolific Robert Lewandowski for half the price with the same contract situation at Bayern.

We need a long term striking solution. At that price I would rather get Oshimen and a 19 year old striker pending the decision made on our suspended striker.
 
kaku06 said:
Why do posters keep mentioning this thing? Why would you want to sell one of the best strikers on the planet if he’s scoring goals for you? Unless you think he’s gonna flop or going to be unprofessional why would this resale value thing matters? If he still has the hunger which he has and scores the goals which you bet he would and gives 3-4 years which he can do easily, why bring up this moot point especially if taken over by the Qataris?

Do you think Fergie thought the same about Van persie or ten hag thought that when signing Casemiro?
Click to expand...

Because we still have to budget and any resale brings the cost of a player per season down significantly. It's not about players in great form but failed signings, if you bring in a young player who underperforms we can still offload him thus reducing the risk. Also a long injury doesn't really matter for a younger player but with Kane its very costly.

If we bring in Kane for that money and don't win the league within 2-3 seasons it'll be a poor signing. That outlay will hamper us in the long run.
 
Smores said:
Because we still have to budget and any resale brings the cost of a player per season down significantly. It's not about players in great form but failed signings, if you bring in a young player who underperforms we can still offload him thus reducing the risk. Also a long injury doesn't really matter for a younger player but with Kane its very costly.

If we bring in Kane for that money and don't win the league within 2-3 seasons it'll be a poor signing. That outlay will hamper us in the long run.
Click to expand...
It’s Kane we are talking about. He’s as assured a signing as we could make. Him being a failed signing is idiotic I think personally. Also him being injury prone is just a myth and I don’t know what to make of getting afraid of new signings getting injured. By that token we should have never signed Casemiro. We also signed him for huge outlay. Were you in favour of or against signing him?
 
Big_Bro said:
For a player in his 30's with one year left in his contract for 80 million quid is just absurd.
Barca got Mr prolific Robert Lewandowski for half the price with the same contract situation at Bayern.
Click to expand...
What is this? 30’s? Kane is still 29 yet he’s already in his 30’s? Barca signed lewandowski for €50m at 34yrs of age. Fifty million euros at the age of Thirty Four. How the hell it is even comparable to signing Kane?
 
Big_Bro said:
We never learn from our mistakes. It's one bad business after another. From Berbatov, Sanchez to Pogba, Sancho, Anthony and a whole lot more.

We can get another striker for what it's worth. If the valuation for Harry is too high and Tottenham doesn't bulge at their price, dodge the bullet and move on.

I won't be surprised if utd end up getting him for a hundred million plus after the likes of Real Madrid start showing interest.

For a player in his 30's with one year left in his contract for 80 million quid is just absurd.
Barca got Mr prolific Robert Lewandowski for half the price with the same contract situation at Bayern.

We need a long term striking solution. At that price I would rather get Oshimen and a 19 year old striker pending the decision made on our suspended striker.
Click to expand...

Lewandowski is a few years older, and still doing the business.... He was half the price because he has less than half the playing time left.

Kane at 30 could have 4 or 5 top years left in him, just like Lewandowski. Why the obsession with long term? Do you not want to win now?
 
Big_Bro said:
For a player in his 30's with one year left in his contract for 80 million quid is just absurd.
Barca got Mr prolific Robert Lewandowski for half the price with the same contract situation at Bayern.
Click to expand...

When Barca bought Lewandowski he was 34. If he plays well until he is 37 he costs them his wages plus £13m per year for those three years.
If Kane plays well until he is 37, 7 years at £11.5m per year would be £80m. (A bit less per year as he isn;t as good - but not that much less as it would be more of Kane's prime years).

I'm not saying either of them are necessarily good deals - but they are comparable.

According to this website Van Persie's transfer (aged 29) would be £74m in today's money:

https://www.totallymoney.com/content/transfer-index/data/#filters?/options?search=van persie

My view on the Van Persie transfer at the time was that it was a hell of a lot for a player of his age with his injury record. We got one amazing season from him and then two disrupted by injuries and managers. Still has to go down as a good signing overall.
 
Camilo said:
Lewandowski is a few years older, and still doing the business.... He was half the price because he has less than half the playing time left.

Kane at 30 could have 4 or 5 top years left in him, just like Lewandowski. Why the obsession with long term? Do you not want to win now?
Click to expand...
I swear some posters just cream themselves at the thought of this word long term. Even if you gave them the choice of either winning the title next season with Kane and ten hag and or winning it 4 yrs later with signing someone else, they would pick the second option. No one realises that our squad is almost ready now bar a few top class signings and given our key players age (Casemiro, Eriksen, Varane, Bruno) it’s imperative for us to go for a proven striker like Kane before we again go for a rebuild in few years time. If we don’t then we would be wasting their prime by winning nothing.
 
Thought he's been around for more than 30 years. Well he's almost there.

Would rather we have Kane than any other striker at the moment but for the right price and not milked for money that could be used in purchasing 2 or 3 fantastic players.

He would be an amazing addition but I would get a younger striker capable of giving me about the same goals and goal contributions for that price.
 
It seems some people that are saying Kane could be a potential flop are equating flop with us not winning the league in the next 4 years. The only way Kane would be a flop is if he himself fails to score a good number of goals or if he declines quite rapidly. Seeing as he's been arguably the best and most consistent striker in the league for a while now and the fact that his game is not dependent on pace, I think there are good chances he won't flop.
 
Last edited:
kaku06 said:
I swear some posters just cream themselves at the thought of this word long term. Even if you gave them the choice of either winning the title next season with Kane and ten hag and or winning it 4 yrs later with signing someone else, they would pick the second option. No one realises that our squad is almost ready now bar a few top class signings and given our key players age (Casemiro, Eriksen, Varane, Bruno) it’s imperative for us to go for a proven striker like Kane before we again go for a rebuild in few years time. If we don’t then we would be wasting their prime by winning nothing.
Click to expand...

It's bizzare, because there will easily be a 'long-term' target available again by the time Kane declines to the point where he can't start games anymore.

The benefit is that we have time to properly scout and find that player, instead of competing with about 5 clubs for the only realistic long-term alternative which is Oshimen.
 
teague said:
When Barca bought Lewandowski he was 34. If he plays well until he is 37 he costs them his wages plus £13m per year for those three years.
If Kane plays well until he is 37, 7 years at £11.5m per year would be £80m. (A bit less per year as he isn;t as good - but not that much less as it would be more of Kane's prime years).

I'm not saying either of them are necessarily good deals - but they are comparable.

According to this website Van Persie's transfer (aged 29) would be £74m in today's money:

https://www.totallymoney.com/content/transfer-index/data/#filters?/options?search=van persie

My view on the Van Persie transfer at the time was that it was a hell of a lot for a player of his age with his injury record. We got one amazing season from him and then two disrupted by injuries and managers. Still has to go down as a good signing overall.
Click to expand...

Lewandowski is a wonderful player but he isn’t quite as good as Kane. Their finishing is on a par and Kane is a better all-around player.
 
teague said:
When Barca bought Lewandowski he was 34. If he plays well until he is 37 he costs them his wages plus £13m per year for those three years.
If Kane plays well until he is 37, 7 years at £11.5m per year would be £80m. (A bit less per year as he isn;t as good - but not that much less as it would be more of Kane's prime years).

I'm not saying either of them are necessarily good deals - but they are comparable.

According to this website Van Persie's transfer (aged 29) would be £74m in today's money:

https://www.totallymoney.com/content/transfer-index/data/#filters?/options?search=van persie

My view on the Van Persie transfer at the time was that it was a hell of a lot for a player of his age with his injury record. We got one amazing season from him and then two disrupted by injuries and managers. Still has to go down as a good signing overall.
Click to expand...
Interesting point but I think taking it to 7 years is quite optimistic. Maybe Ronaldo and Messi can do it, but they started from a point at which they were among the greatest ever, so when they lost some steps they're still very good. Kane isn't quite that good.

Also in general I think extrapolating that far for a player in his 30s is not really sensible to bank on. There is too much that can happen in that time for a senior player. All the probabilities around niggling injuries, loss of athleticism and reflexes, loss of overall level start to get larger and larger when you take such a long period. I think the relative 'banker' is Kane playing very well for his next contract, which I'm guessing would probably be 4 years.
 
If we buy Kane & Ferguson/the danish striker to learn from the experienced Kane then that also a good reason to buy Kane over Osimhen.

I think we might do this with Casemiro as well - buy ayoung player to learn from him.
 
Bebestation said:
If we buy Kane & Ferguson/the danish striker to learn from the experienced Kane then that also a good reason to buy Kane over Osimhen.

I think we might do this with Casemiro as well - buy ayoung player to learn from him.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of that. But think we are probably better off just getting Kane and buying the understudy when Kane is on the decline in two years.
 
kaku06 said:
Why do posters keep mentioning this thing? Why would you want to sell one of the best strikers on the planet if he’s scoring goals for you? Unless you think he’s gonna flop or going to be unprofessional why would this resale value thing matters? If he still has the hunger which he has and scores the goals which you bet he would and gives 3-4 years which he can do easily, why bring up this moot point especially if taken over by the Qataris?

Do you think Fergie thought the same about Van persie or ten hag thought that when signing Casemiro?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Clubs who think about "re-sale value" as a primary driver are selling clubs, not winners. Real Madrid and City don't think that way.

He's one of the best forwards in the world who improves us significantly - potentially, if other areas are addressed, pushing us right into title contention. He's the best player we could realistically get in his position. He'll almost certainly score more goals than any of the other options.

Van Persie is a good comparator, although Kane is better and has a much better injury record.

Casemiro highlights how much difference "quality" gives you over "potential".
 
Big_Bro said:
Thought he's been around for more than 30 years. Well he's almost there.

Would rather we have Kane than any other striker at the moment but for the right price and not milked for money that could be used in purchasing 2 or 3 fantastic players.

He would be an amazing addition but I would get a younger striker capable of giving me about the same goals and goal contributions for that price.
Click to expand...

You don't get three fantastic players for £80 - £100 million.

If he refuses to sign a new deal, Spurs will sell. The new manager will want funds to spend and watching Kane run his contract down isn't good business.
 
Bebestation said:
If we buy Kane & Ferguson/the danish striker to learn from the experienced Kane then that also a good reason to buy Kane over Osimhen.

I think we might do this with Casemiro as well - buy ayoung player to learn from him.
Click to expand...
If Spurs sell Kane, I’d imagine they’d then go for Ferguson.
 
Yeah if we signed Kane AND someone like Ferguson or Hojland in the summer that would be better.

Putting £80m of eggs into the 30 year old staying fit basket is another recipe for disaster.
 
Buying Kane will give us a shit at the premier league. He will have an RVP like effect on the team. He is PL proven, scores a lot, has a good link up play, has quality now instead of potential.

Resale value? We are not a seller club. Winners don’t think about resale value.

A good summer will se us signing both Kane to immediately win the PL and Ferguson as his deputy/understudy. Ee need two strikes. Prefer spending 150 million on them over spending 150 million just on Osimhen
 
I would be happy to see him offcourse but if I was him, I'd push for a Real Madrid or Bayern move. In those teams he wouldn't have the need to play link up 30 yard with his back turned from goal. Instead he would be smashing in 35 goals a season maybe even more
But yeah it would be a superb scenario
 
I was fuming when we bought 31 year old Sheringham in to replace the King. I was incredibly wrong.

We sign Kane, we finally have a 9 who hits 20+ goals in the league.

When was the last time we had one?
 
People keep going on about his loyalty. He swore in the name of his daughter that he scored a goal instead of Eriksen once. But I doubt he would do the same to proof his loyalty to Spurs, he's sick of them but he trapped himself.
 
ForeverRed1 said:
He is perfect for what we want. World class, another leader and premier league proven. ETH will love him. Guys a work horse with an exceptional attitude also. You’re getting a player who will command the respect of the youngsters around him. I feel he’ll be a RVP type signing for us. He is also desperate to become Pl top scorer and to win trophies.
Click to expand...

The problem is he can't press like Erik wants but certainly has the getting involved with build up and finishing sorted
 
hobbers said:
Yeah if we signed Kane AND someone like Ferguson or Hojland in the summer that would be better.

Putting £80m of eggs into the 30 year old staying fit basket is another recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...

What would it take to get Ferguson/Hojlund alongside Kane is the question. I also get the impression we aren't looking at signing two but could change if owners are sorted.
 
croadyman said:
The problem is he can't press like Erik wants but certainly has the getting involved with build up and finishing sorted
Click to expand...

Neither did Martial - Martial pressed more slowly and efficiently to stop passing lanes rather than pressing straight against the opposition defender.

I think Kane can do that - press to stop passing lanes than press the player.

However, really depends on what Ten Hag wants.
 
What resale value does Osimhen even have? Do people seriously think we're gonna buy him for £140m and sell him for £200m or something? That doesn't happen.

It's a crazy thing to factor in.
 
didz said:
What resale value does Osimhen even have? Do people seriously think we're gonna buy him for £140m and sell him for £200m or something? That doesn't happen.

It's a crazy thing to factor in.
Click to expand...
Well, stranger things have happened. If he's a success and he suddenly wants to play for Madrid in five years, who knows what he will be worth. I'd say we'd recoup his fee.
 
didz said:
What resale value does Osimhen even have? Do people seriously think we're gonna buy him for £140m and sell him for £200m or something? That doesn't happen.

It's a crazy thing to factor in.
Click to expand...
I guess it's more like what happened with Lukaku. Even though it didn't work out we still managed to make most of our money back. Osimhen would be similar that even if he fails here we should still be able to sell for a decent amount.

So the two most likely options would be that we either have someone here for a good long time as he succeeds and is the player we want upfront (so wouldn't have to spend more money on another striker for ages), or if he fails we should get a good amount of money back which would then go towards his replacement.

Whereas if Kane deteriorates because of his age in a year or two the money we spent on him would basically be dead money. We wouldn't be able to sell him for much, if at all.
 
Murder on Zidane's Floor said:
Well, stranger things have happened. If he's a success and he suddenly wants to play for Madrid in five years, who knows what he will be worth. I'd say we'd recoup his fee.
Click to expand...

Or he refuses to sign an extension and walks on a free in 5 years, as is happening more often these days.
 
MadDogg said:
I guess it's more like what happened with Lukaku. Even though it didn't work out we still managed to make most of our money back. Osimhen would be similar that even if he fails here we should still be able to sell for a decent amount.

So the two most likely options would be that we either have someone here for a good long time as he succeeds and is the player we want upfront (so wouldn't have to spend more money on another striker for ages), or if he fails we should get a good amount of money back which would then go towards his replacement.

Whereas if Kane deteriorates because of his age in a year or two the money we spent on him would basically be dead money. We wouldn't be able to sell him for much, if at all.
Click to expand...

Lukaku was a bit of a special case wasn't he? He went back to his old club and manager, where they were confident he was still worth that. Maybe Napoli would do the same if Osimhen didn't work out, no idea. But ultimately that seems a lot like planning for failure and I'd rather we just went and got it right - which Ten Hag seems to be doing pretty well so far.

If Osimhen is the better man for the job, that's the way to go. But I don't think assuming that we'll get someone to pay crazy money for him if he fails is a sound strategy. At this kind of money, you wanna be doing you're homework to get it right.

To put it another way, if you're assuming he'll fail, then maybe somebody only pays £60m to take him off your hands. That's still an £80m loss, same as if you'd bought Kane, won stuff and lost him for nothing.
 
Both Ferguson and the Dane Hojlund are both supposed to be Utd fans. We could get both for around 80-100 mill and be set for the next decade.
 
wolvored said:
Both Ferguson and the Dane Hojlund are both supposed to be Utd fans. We could get both for around 80-100 mill and be set for the next decade.
Click to expand...

Very few of our 'set for the next decade' players have really worked out in the last decade. We can't put all our eggs into the unproven player basket.
 
Cloud7 said:
Very few of our 'set for the next decade' players have really worked out in the last decade. We can't put all our eggs into the unproven player basket.
Click to expand...
True, but even if we had them both for only 3/4 years before Madrid came a calling, we would sell at a profit. If in another scenario only one was the real deal we would still gain by that player and the other player is still young enough to get some fee back albeit probably lower. Bit like selling Maguire for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.