-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Ex-Spurs Player Harry Kane
- Thread starter Moulman14
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
FFP is a terrible idea in the first place. "you are rich? yes you are allowed to buy better players than the poorer team with fewer fans"
By all reports the asking price is £150-160m. Levy won't budge from that, nor should he, and City aren't going to pay that much.
Everyone wants to save face here, so the only way I see this getting over the line is money + player. Something like £120m + Laporte. Left footed center back slotting in next to Romero, only 27 years old on £120k/wk until 2025. Kane out the door with Vlahović coming in.
Everyone wants to save face here, so the only way I see this getting over the line is money + player. Something like £120m + Laporte. Left footed center back slotting in next to Romero, only 27 years old on £120k/wk until 2025. Kane out the door with Vlahović coming in.
I think it's pretty fair to say that most fans are hypocrites when push comes to shove, fanaticism doesn't always go hand in hand with logic and reason...It's not the same at all. We're excited that we're going to a good CB that is turning up to training etc.
We're a bit annoyed at Kane because he's reportedly not turned up for training because he's trying to force a move away.
Honestly I don't think there's any other rational way to react to it. I'm not going to be annoyed that Atalanta are losing a good player and I'm not going to be happy for City if he goes.
I think it's really unfair that you're essentially saying that us Spurs fans are hypocrites
Plus it's a game at the end of the day, much easier to pick and choose your moral battles than most other instances.
Harry Kane
What relationship we fucking hate spurs lol. Ha. Not Jim B and his friends but it is nice that you thought that relationship mattered. I mean Levy. So next time you come knocking for Son or whoever, it will be even more tricky to get the deal over the line.
forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk
Harry Kane
What relationship we fucking hate spurs lol. Ha. Not Jim B and his friends but it is nice that you thought that relationship mattered. I mean Levy. So next time you come knocking for Son or whoever, it will be even more tricky to get the deal over the line.
forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk
This message is awaiting moderator approval, and is invisible to normal visitors.
The Don
Not at all. You pay what we want. We hold the cards here, not you or Harry Kane. He’s on a 3 year contract and can easily go for 100 mil abroad next year if we really want. You tapped him up and you buy trophies every year, so you simply pay the asking price we want. Cough up 160 million and he’s yours. If not, fuck off and we keep him. Nothing Harry Kane can do about it unless he buys out his contract.
—————-
fuck off you City muppets
They could fine him a Million,and whilst a massive amount,he would have made it back in a few months.
Arcspace posted a guardian article further up the thread
Football's financial fair play rules to be ripped up after Covid crisis
Football’s financial fair play rules are to undergo dramatic change with the key break-even measure declared ‘purposeless’ by Uefa
www.theguardian.com
The assumption could well be that the "gentleman agreement" if it existed, was we would sell him if an acceptable bid came in for him. City DID put in a bid in (£100m + players) earlier, but it clearly wasn't acceptable.
Whatever way this is cut the result comes up the same if City wants to buy one of the World's best strikers they will have to pay a fee that reflects this. If they don't he's not going anywhere. If they value Grealish at £100m then it's obvious that Kane's valuation is considerably higher.
All the pressure is on City.
Two parties in this that have fucked things up are Charlie Kane (and Kane) and City. City has just made it worse for themselves by putting a £100m price on Grealish.
Thanks for your input, Charlie. Now go put on your three-piece suit for your one client like a kid playing dress up.
And your inability to see the comparison makes you even dumber. Really dumb and stupid.
Why should Romero refuse to train when his club has been negotiating his sale for around 3 weeks at least...???
In other words, unlike Spurs, his club, Atalanta is NOT refusing to sell him - rather they are actively wanting to sell him.
So why should Romero throw a fit then?
I never said it was the right thing to do for Kane. But we do NOT know what kind of agreement Kane had with Levy & Lewis.
Absolutely ^
3 hours into his non-show, and not a dickie bird from Kane. Who told him this would be a good idea? Some twat - and he's been silly to go along with it.
So what your basically saying is sporting contracts are meaningless because he wants to leave and we should sell him for less than his value or we are oppressing his human rights or something? the poor lamb on his £200k a week.
Single tear for Harry Kane and his career.
or am I misquoting you?
I blame Kane for this
Falling out of love with football. If City get Grealish for the reported fee they will have spent over £900m on players under Pep Guardiola. He’s a boyhood Villa lad. Harry is a boyhood Spurs player
You blame LevyArcspacE and yes we had a whole year not spending. That was during a period where Liverpool scored 97 points and didn’t get the title because of these sportswashers with their arab sugar daddy. So chances are we could have spent 100m and still come up with nothing.
The game is fucked. Sugar daddies is the only way to win and that sucks, we hate Woolwich but they are run the right way, and look how far they’ve slipped because of it. Run as a self sustaining club and look how far they have fallen. Look how far we are falling as another self sustaining club. United haven’t got close to a title after Fergie in this era of City, Chelsea, PSG etc ruining club football.
I do not get how any football fan can think that a club run like Woolwich is better run than one that is run like Man City, except if their view is heavily obscured by jealousy or some sense of "unfairness".
Woolwich had the invincibles. They were close to being the best team in the world, in a position that is far easier to hold than to break into, situated in one of the most attractive cities for football clubs in the world, in the richest league in the world. Since then, they very gradually underinvested and overpaid young seemingly talented players their way out of the top 4.
Their league positions the last 25 years:
96/97: 3
98/98: 1
98/99: 2
99/00: 2
00/01: 2
01/02: 1
02/03: 2
03/04: 1
04/05: 2
05/06: 4
06/07: 4
07/08: 3
08/09: 4
09/10: 3
10/11: 4
11/12: 3
12/13: 4
13/14: 4
14/15: 3
15/16: 2
16/17: 5
17/18: 6
18/19: 5
19/20: 8
20/21: 8
Ever since the early 2000's, people have been talking about how well run a club Woolwich is. Their league position tells a very different story.
How is it better for a football club, to have one or more owners seeking to enrich themselves at the expense of quality of football, rather than having owners that invest in the club?
The owners of City have not just spent a shit ton of money on random players. They have invested wisely in City, actually getting great results, getting the arguably best manager in world of football, getting great, exciting players, playing excellent football, building a fantastic academy, etc. They have built a club that is now in position that can be defended for years to come if the clubs stays well run.
A well run club does not move from being arguably the best to being outside of top 4 for five consecutive seasons and being 8th two concecutive seasons.
I liked the way we were run until everyone got too greedy for trophies. The last few years we have struggled as decisions have been made with results in mind instead of progress. That being said, the best way a club can be run is by having owners that are willing to make sound and wise investments in the club.
I can not understand why it is better that a club with a rich owner looking to make money is financed by a million working class people, like Woolwich or Manchester United, rather than that a club is financed by a rich owner looking to provide the greatest possible quality of football for their fans to enjoy.
Add mustard????
I blame Kane for this
:nunofacepalm:
Playing for Spurs U23s at this rate. Can he challenge Scarlett for the starting job?
Do you really believe Kane and his agent have not sounded out the market before taking this action (of not turning up for training)...?
Do you believe that Kane's refusing to turn up for training while he's hoping a club, out of nowhere, will turn up and pay what he and Spurs would demand?
The Kane's knows that there are clubs ready to pay up for him.
Again, I am NOT saying his actions are right.