• 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...

    Get involved!

Ex-Spurs Player Harry Kane

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

1882 said:
...in hindsight, there were rather a lot of £££'s... it wasn't a necessary point to make... the fact I had to scroll down the post for half an hour to even edit it proves it was overkill!
I've edited into a 'spoiler' instead, it wasn't meant as a 'spam' post, honest!

(The 'cunt calling' was a bit harsh,mind!)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Personally I think you should have hit the edit button ,copy and pasted it, and made it about 3x bigger after the abuse you got.
 
Zomb said:
Woolwich and Chelsea will pay >100M
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A lot of what's in the press is just baloney but obviously there is some degree of truth to the story that Kane might want a move away. The problem being that he wants to stay in England & wants to go to a contender. That means Man U & C, Chelsea, Liverpool & possibly Woolwich though I personally don't see them as contenders. We all know that Levy will demand massive money but other than U & C I don't see the other clubs being in contention.
Kane needed to think about this before signing a six year deal. He is putting his club in a tricky position.
 
gurru991 said:
A lot of what's in the press is just baloney but obviously there is some degree of truth to the story that Kane might want a move away. The problem being that he wants to stay in England & wants to go to a contender. That means Man U & C, Chelsea, Liverpool & possibly Woolwich though I personally don't see them as contenders. We all know that Levy will demand massive money but other than U & C I don't see the other clubs being in contention.
Kane needed to think about this before signing a six year deal. He is putting his club in a tricky position.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not his fault the club have regressed since the six year deal was signed, he’s kept his part of the deal and banged in 30+ every season....
 
Pootle said:
Interesting take on Kane’s situation by Matt Dickinson in The Times today:

There is not much that links football from the 1960s with the business of today, but reading Harry Kane’s latest nudge of the exit door at Tottenham Hotspur this week brought a timely reminder of a story I once heard about Johnny Haynes.

The Fulham legend was attending a dinner in his honour, packed with adoring fans, when he was asked about his 18 years at Craven Cottage and why he remained a devoted one-club man, unlike modern football mercenaries.

Haynes gave the unexpected but admirably honest response that, in truth, he had been eager to leave for Tottenham, who were offering more money and a much greater prospect of silverware. As faces fell, Haynes explained that the only reason he stayed at one club was because of the restrictive transfer regulations of the time and Fulham’s refusal to let him pursue his dreams.

Kane’s comments this week, again expressing his frustration at a lack of medals and inviting Daniel Levy, the Spurs chairman, to read between the lines, could be shaping up as a modern echo: another hugely talented England captain thinking that he has outgrown his club, ready to move on but wondering if he will be released from his contract or remain trapped in a gilded cage.
Haynes, it should be said, was neither disenchanted nor particularly regretful. He had become the first £100-a-week footballer in Britain once the maximum wage was lifted in 1961, and could bask in lifelong acclaim at Fulham. Posthumously, a statue of this gifted inside forward was put up outside Craven Cottage in 2008, three years after his death.

He could not measure his career in silverware — tenth in the top division and a couple of FA Cup semi-finals was as near as Fulham came to glory in Haynes’s time — but he has been immortalised in bronze.

It made me ponder how we weigh up success. We talk about trophies as the obvious tally, almost as if they are the sole reason for the elite players and coaches to get out of bed. But do we count only who won what?

Medals might matter most for a player in his twenties but what about during those many decades post-playing? Can reputation and enduring affinity with a club, or a region, come to mean more?

Alan Shearer was the first inductee this week into the Premier League Hall of Fame and he lifted one club trophy: the league title, at Blackburn Rovers. His stellar career is not evaluated through silverware but all the goals he plundered — a record of 260 in the Premier League that Kane, on 164, chases — and remembered, most poignantly, in the brass statue that stands outside St James’ Park, right arm raised in that idiosyncratic celebration. Shearer won nothing in a decade at Newcastle United but is, by any estimation, a footballing legend.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Perhaps there is something Levy could offer Kane. If not a statue but if he stays at Spurs until the end of his career, naming one of the stands after him. Instead of the South stand, the Harry Kane stand. Coupled with beating Greaves and Shearers records he would be remembered as a star.
 
gurru991 said:
A lot of what's in the press is just baloney but obviously there is some degree of truth to the story that Kane might want a move away. The problem being that he wants to stay in England & wants to go to a contender. That means Man U & C, Chelsea, Liverpool & possibly Woolwich though I personally don't see them as contenders. We all know that Levy will demand massive money but other than U & C I don't see the other clubs being in contention.
Kane needed to think about this before signing a six year deal. He is putting his club in a tricky position.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What are you talking about dude? Do you prefer an Eriksen situation with his contract expiring in one year and refusing to re-new? Harry put HIMSELF in a tricky position by signing a long contract. In contrast, Harry put the club in a better position by signing the contract. What the hell are you talking about?
 
Love all these theories I'm seeing on twitter at the moment that Levys "master plan" will net us 300 million pounds and some Madrid players in a superstar deal.

Levy is a thick cunt, so what will actually happen is Kane is forced to play out his contract becoming increasingly more disillusioned, putting in poor performances before being pawned off for a bargin fee in his 30s.
 
Pootle said:
Interesting take on Kane’s situation by Matt Dickinson in The Times today:

There is not much that links football from the 1960s with the business of today, but reading Harry Kane’s latest nudge of the exit door at Tottenham Hotspur this week brought a timely reminder of a story I once heard about Johnny Haynes.

The Fulham legend was attending a dinner in his honour, packed with adoring fans, when he was asked about his 18 years at Craven Cottage and why he remained a devoted one-club man, unlike modern football mercenaries.

Haynes gave the unexpected but admirably honest response that, in truth, he had been eager to leave for Tottenham, who were offering more money and a much greater prospect of silverware. As faces fell, Haynes explained that the only reason he stayed at one club was because of the restrictive transfer regulations of the time and Fulham’s refusal to let him pursue his dreams.

Kane’s comments this week, again expressing his frustration at a lack of medals and inviting Daniel Levy, the Spurs chairman, to read between the lines, could be shaping up as a modern echo: another hugely talented England captain thinking that he has outgrown his club, ready to move on but wondering if he will be released from his contract or remain trapped in a gilded cage.
Haynes, it should be said, was neither disenchanted nor particularly regretful. He had become the first £100-a-week footballer in Britain once the maximum wage was lifted in 1961, and could bask in lifelong acclaim at Fulham. Posthumously, a statue of this gifted inside forward was put up outside Craven Cottage in 2008, three years after his death.

He could not measure his career in silverware — tenth in the top division and a couple of FA Cup semi-finals was as near as Fulham came to glory in Haynes’s time — but he has been immortalised in bronze.

It made me ponder how we weigh up success. We talk about trophies as the obvious tally, almost as if they are the sole reason for the elite players and coaches to get out of bed. But do we count only who won what?

Medals might matter most for a player in his twenties but what about during those many decades post-playing? Can reputation and enduring affinity with a club, or a region, come to mean more?

Alan Shearer was the first inductee this week into the Premier League Hall of Fame and he lifted one club trophy: the league title, at Blackburn Rovers. His stellar career is not evaluated through silverware but all the goals he plundered — a record of 260 in the Premier League that Kane, on 164, chases — and remembered, most poignantly, in the brass statue that stands outside St James’ Park, right arm raised in that idiosyncratic celebration. Shearer won nothing in a decade at Newcastle United but is, by any estimation, a footballing legend.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That same footballing legend is telling Kane to do what he didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top