So are you saying that we should sell Kane at the £100m City want to pay even though he has 3 years left and is worth a lot more than that?
How does that work?
-
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...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
How does that work?
No but with context
ENIC have overseen us fall away massively over the last two years. So I don’t agree but understand
I'm saying we should find a way to make something happen, yes.
I don't want a player worth (at least) that much not happy and not performing.
Surprised 20 people said yes.
I don't like ENIC and I think he should leave because he wants to win things.
BUT you're getting paid 200k a week, during a time when people are losing their jobs, come in to training and do your job, until such time Shitty make an acceptable bid that we accept.
If they don't do it, tough shit. Stop whining and do your job.
I don't like ENIC and I think he should leave because he wants to win things.
BUT you're getting paid 200k a week, during a time when people are losing their jobs, come in to training and do your job, until such time Shitty make an acceptable bid that we accept.
If they don't do it, tough shit. Stop whining and do your job.
But we value him at £150m so how are we making that work exactly? that's what I'm asking.
Or are you suggesting we cave in because the dozy twonk has skipped training and take it up the shitter from the Sheikhs? maybe they will be kind enough to lube us up with a splash of oil.
Sorry I just don't get where you are coming from, he is our player under contract. We don't have to sell.
I'm suggesting there is always a deal.
We can value him at whatever we want but whatever they offer now is the most we will ever get for him. His value will go down as his contract winds down and that depreciation will accelerate if he stops performing.
We'll just have a useless striker earning a huge salary with no benefit to the club.
What could the deal be?
How about £100m up front not in installments?
How about a legally binding contract that stops them from signing anymore of our players for a min of 5 years?
How about a first option at a discounted rate for any players they are willing to sell for the next 5 years?
How about they buy another airline with a blue logo and sponsor our shirts a vast amount of money...
There are many ways to make the deal work for everyone.
Why do we need to do any of that when we value him at £150m?
He's got three years left, he will sulk and stamp his feet for a bit but he isn't going to down tools when the window closes.
We hold all the cards yet to use a poker analogy you are still looking to fold a tiny re-raise
Do you want Kane at the club for 3 years with zero benefit to the team?
Do you actually understand what is at risk?
We can say no.
What we can't do is make him perform like a £100m asset for the next 3 years.
And let's be serious here, if we did keep him and if he did actually perform at 100% - then what?
Then we have a 32 year old out of contract and no money to replace him.
There's a LOT more to think about than people realise.
No he is very much not a slave, no sportsman earning insane money is. I would happily take a 6 year deal at my workplace for £200k a week.
So you are suggesting that Kane will tank his own career because he didn't get his move?
I mean that's a big leap from not turning up to training.
When a toddler asks for sweeties and then stamps his feet and screams in the shop would you buy the entire sweet section?
There is a world cup next year, Kane will want to be involved.
I am 100% convinced that he will turn up and give us another 25+ goal season, and that City will be back with the 100m again next summer, because players like Kane are rare as rocking horse shit.
And you want to sell him for the equivalent of two Sanchezes worth of money.
We didn't inflate this market, those cunts did. And they should have to pay through the nose for one of the best strikers in the world.
It's not like he's 30, he's in his absolute prime.
Don't think we will agree on this tbh
And I am sure we will if £200m comes in for him. If £100m is fair market value for Grealish then Kane is £200m.
Grealish at £100m is market value
And that is that is the yawning chasm in your 'argument'.
It's way over priced.
Unlike Kane, Grealish is over rated.
Thats the problem here. Peope are right that Kane should cost more than Grealish. The problem is he's worth nowhere near that.
Be that as may.Thats what he is going for.
And Chelsea have failed with a bid for Lukaku at £100m from Inter, not as good a striker as Kane
I hope you are not suggesting both ManCIty and Chelsea are over valuing other players ?
Kane is only rare in the sense that he's English plying his trade in the English Premier League and playing for the club he came through as a youth.
There are other prolific strikers throughout Europe. My gut feeling is for Kane to go to City, it has to happen this season. Or else they will go for someone younger with a longer span for that money.
Kane is in the top 5 strikers in the world, he scores goals season after season in the best league in the world.
He is elite levels and therefore should have an elite price tag.
When people talk about players like Zaha being worth £80m in this hyper inflated market, Kane is easily worth the £150m
And we are being done rough and dirty by City if we sell for anything less than that.
I understand and appreciate the arguments, but if we are waiting for the right offer I wouldn't be shocked to see levy allow it to go to the last week of the transfer window get market value then leave us with zero time to get a replacement of any worth. E. G. Berbatov.
He has a track record of prioritising club economic growth over fan contentment.