-
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
I hate everything about how this club is run right now
However
It looks like we were only ever offered 75mil for Kane , that is all that was on the table . People keep mentioning 150mil bids turned down but there is zero evidence to support that
While 75 mil might seem like reasonable business right now it was insulting 3 months ago for a player who finished top of the scoring and assist charts in the previous season and had been a prolific goalscorer for 5 or 6 years
We were right to turn that down
Besides if we had sold him for a big fee we’d have only pissed the money up against a wall on a handful of magic beans
However
It looks like we were only ever offered 75mil for Kane , that is all that was on the table . People keep mentioning 150mil bids turned down but there is zero evidence to support that
While 75 mil might seem like reasonable business right now it was insulting 3 months ago for a player who finished top of the scoring and assist charts in the previous season and had been a prolific goalscorer for 5 or 6 years
We were right to turn that down
Besides if we had sold him for a big fee we’d have only pissed the money up against a wall on a handful of magic beans
On a 3 year deal for the highest goal scorer and creator in the prem when City paid £100m for Grealish.
We had little choice the offer of £75m plus £25m add ons or whatever was pathetic from City. Our target replace Martinez was also going to cost around £80m taking pretty much all the money.
We’d have sold Kane, bought Martinez, still be doing crap but Kane would have been banging in loads of goals for City.
Here is what we should have done
- hired a good manager be it Potter, Ten Hag, Conte who would have played and coached a good system.
- bought another striker, even an Ings or Daka so if Kane still has a strop he can be dropped and miss out on the World Cup if he does.
- moved forward with that with either a rejuvenated Kane or a Kane as a sub bench striker covering Daka or someone.
We had little choice the offer of £75m plus £25m add ons or whatever was pathetic from City. Our target replace Martinez was also going to cost around £80m taking pretty much all the money.
We’d have sold Kane, bought Martinez, still be doing crap but Kane would have been banging in loads of goals for City.
Here is what we should have done
- hired a good manager be it Potter, Ten Hag, Conte who would have played and coached a good system.
- bought another striker, even an Ings or Daka so if Kane still has a strop he can be dropped and miss out on the World Cup if he does.
- moved forward with that with either a rejuvenated Kane or a Kane as a sub bench striker covering Daka or someone.
It's more complicated that a straightforward "should we have sold".
For years and years of having our best players sold with us as a stepping stone, we haven't done that. Even Walker went on our terms to a degree and none of us thought losing him for a fee of £50m was a bad call, really.
Selling your best player, who could yet still reach higher levels (most goals and assists last season) for a paltry £100m with three years left on his deal? We all would have been furious. All of us.
In hindsight it looks a mistake, but has he fallen off a cliff and lost ability? Have those injuries taken their toll? Does he just not give a shit? These are all variables to consider.
If he's shot, then obviously it's a mistake and we should have sold him, but we will never know how much City really wanted him, given the reported £75m + extras offer. Trying to reactivate discussions in the last week of the window when we wouldn't have been able to get a replacement was a non-starter too.
Obviously the way Kane is playing is only going to decrease any future fee too, but also opportunities. If you ran a business and you were looking to hire someone, this is his interview: would you hire him?
He's been badly advised, continues to be badly advised and isn't doing anything to appease anyone.
Bottom line, he signed a six year deal. With no escape clause. He was happy to do that at the time, he wasn't forced to.
For years and years of having our best players sold with us as a stepping stone, we haven't done that. Even Walker went on our terms to a degree and none of us thought losing him for a fee of £50m was a bad call, really.
Selling your best player, who could yet still reach higher levels (most goals and assists last season) for a paltry £100m with three years left on his deal? We all would have been furious. All of us.
In hindsight it looks a mistake, but has he fallen off a cliff and lost ability? Have those injuries taken their toll? Does he just not give a shit? These are all variables to consider.
If he's shot, then obviously it's a mistake and we should have sold him, but we will never know how much City really wanted him, given the reported £75m + extras offer. Trying to reactivate discussions in the last week of the window when we wouldn't have been able to get a replacement was a non-starter too.
Obviously the way Kane is playing is only going to decrease any future fee too, but also opportunities. If you ran a business and you were looking to hire someone, this is his interview: would you hire him?
He's been badly advised, continues to be badly advised and isn't doing anything to appease anyone.
Bottom line, he signed a six year deal. With no escape clause. He was happy to do that at the time, he wasn't forced to.
Last edited:
By the way, the vote isn't really valid as the 2nd option is heavily loaded - if you actually want people's opinions, as opposed to just forcing them to support yours, you need to change that option to something at least more neutral. Some people may believe Harry is just having a bad patch or whatever - I'm not saying I believe that, I don't, but the way the option is worded in your vote makes the whole thing invalid as an objective survey of opinions as far as I'm concerned.
Oh good!
The “Everyone always wanted Kane OUT” thread!!
The “Everyone always wanted Kane OUT” thread!!
Using hindsight you’d obviously say yes we should have sold him, he’s been a piece of shit this season, taking the piss out of us as fans that have supported him through thick and thin
But at the time it looked like a great move to keep hold of him
But at the time it looked like a great move to keep hold of him
Just because you said it at the time doesn't mean that it was necessarily some kind of seeing into the future power. As I've countered on numerous occasions on this topic, Modric, Berbatov, Bale, all gave excellent last seasons having had their transfer desires rejected the previous summer. Kane has never come across as a difficult character in that respect, he's always seemed like a top professional. Anyone who predicted that he would be rubbish this year if we kept him may well turn out to be right, but they were just guessing (and not even educated guessing, as our experience with top players who want to go but are denied for one more year are actually the opposite of that prediction).
So you're on Pep's side he who openly named Kane as a player he wanted and they wanted to bid for. A player under a contract with another team.
Pep broke the golden rule - tapping up players and mentioning players he wants from another club.
Complete Dick move regardless of what the best outcome was for all parties.
Problem is, City tried to low ball us. They tapped up Kane and Charlie. You can have no doubt that the timing of the Neville interview was no accident. They wanted to unsettle the Spurs squad and ensure they didn't end up finishing in the top 4.
My expectation is that the relationship between Kane, the club and the squad is beyond repair and we now face the grim prospect of getting well below what we expected for Kane.
My expectation is that the relationship between Kane, the club and the squad is beyond repair and we now face the grim prospect of getting well below what we expected for Kane.
I still think we were right to keep him. The offer that came in for him was insulting and Man City knew that. If they genuinely wanted him they’d have made a sensible bid as a starting point to negotiations. By lowballing and then blaming things on Levy not negotiating they don’t look like the bad guys.
Yes, he’s performing badly right now, but so are the rest of the squad. I think we’re rotten from the boardroom to the pitch and Kane is a symptom of that rather than the cause. If we can get some spark back into the team Kane will find form again.
Yes, he’s performing badly right now, but so are the rest of the squad. I think we’re rotten from the boardroom to the pitch and Kane is a symptom of that rather than the cause. If we can get some spark back into the team Kane will find form again.
So Man City offered up ridiculously high wages to Harry while offering a ridiculously low transfer fee to Spurs. Disgraceful behaviour!
Now we have a disgruntled shell of a player on our hands.
I hate those oil cunts.
Now we have a disgruntled shell of a player on our hands.
I hate those oil cunts.
Hahaha imagine.
'Hey Bernardo and Aymeric .. you're both regular starters in a team that wins the league and challenges for the CL whilst getting paid bucketloads, fancy coming over to the conference league with Spurs?'
All of these players City were supposedly willing to swap would have laughed in our faces, aside from *maybe* Jesus who isn't very good anyway. They're some of the best players in their position in the Premier League, they're not coming to Spurs just because City did a deal for Kane.
There's a reason swap deals almost never happen. Player gets the final say.
There was an offer but the bald cunt lied to the fans as usual
I dread to think what could have happened in the last few games if it weren't for Harry's goals. We would be out of the EFL Cup and struggling in the ECL and it was his goal and assist that helped us win v Newcastle.
We are in the position we are in because of the manager's shit tactics and selections and our not very good creative midfielders not because of Harry Kane.
We are in the position we are in because of the manager's shit tactics and selections and our not very good creative midfielders not because of Harry Kane.
If we had got a proper manager in, then perhaps it would have been different. But we can never know that for sure.
I do know that only last season, Kane was the top scorer and top assister in the Premier League. I don't think he has lost his ability in a few months, but it does seem he has lost motivation. Whether a better coach than Nuno (say, Conte) could have made the difference in that department, again, we don't know for sure. My opinion is all of our attacking players would look better with a manager who isn't Nuno. I think Nuno is the worst coach we have had in a long time.
I do know that only last season, Kane was the top scorer and top assister in the Premier League. I don't think he has lost his ability in a few months, but it does seem he has lost motivation. Whether a better coach than Nuno (say, Conte) could have made the difference in that department, again, we don't know for sure. My opinion is all of our attacking players would look better with a manager who isn't Nuno. I think Nuno is the worst coach we have had in a long time.
I think you sum things up perfectly here.
This.
We direct our vitriol towards Levy but on this occasion, the real culprit for our Kane predicament is financial doping and the way clubs with limitless funds can inflict such shithousery upon their opponents.
In the euros, we could see how terrible Kane was compared to his england teammates. The only way was downhill , and he is rolling down that hill fast. Next year he will be worse. He can still be somewhat restored if he played for a perfect team, but for us he is done.