• 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!

Transfers Summer 2021 - Transfer Thread

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Status
Not open for further replies.
MemphisWill said:
He's got 3 seasons left on his contract. So if he wants out and City won't meet our valuation this summer - him sulking and being an uber-cunt for the next 12 months isn't likely to see them hand in an acceptable offer in 12 months either. So then he'd be forced to play another year before Levy flogged him to the highest bidder with only a year left, which after 2 years of acting a tit and at 30 years old isn't likely to be City.

This idea that Kane will be shit and a disruption if he stays because he's unhappy is just not sensible. If City won't pay Levy's mark this summer, and he really wants to go, then he's got no choice but to get his head down and prove to City that they have to meet the valuation for him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
By which point they can sign Haaland instead

:ledley:
 
Matt1882 said:
Do you genuinely think the best outcome for broke as fuck (apparently) THFC is to ignore a nine figure sum of money that won't come around again?

If Kane had turned up the last 3 days and got his head down I'd believe he would carry on as is.
But he's made his intentions clear. The idea of him sulking for a year, being toxic in training and relentlessly making negative statements is not worth it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Why wouldn't the money come around again? Why do think so?
Harry Kane is one of the best players in the game.
It happens that players don't get their move right away. Look at Modric, look at Hazard.

It does not mean that they would become worthless within one season time.

In current climate actually I assume that there would be more parties interested in one years time when part of the Corona issues have been left behind.

He can sulk around but he can also recognize that this will not suit his interests either. His value and future income will suffer because of that.
 
Dr Rocktopus said:
By which point they can sign Haaland instead

:ledley:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Which is why its on him to prove to them, if thats what he wants, that they need him over Haaland.

I was supporting Spurs before Kane was an awkward academy kid Windy mentioned in passing, and I'll be supporting Spurs after he's retired with a bunch of winners medals bought for him by a middle Eastern slave owner. Seeing so many prostrate themselves before the greater glory of Harry Kane is pretty fucking sickening, TBH.
 
Wellsey said:
As the Cinch ad goes...We are in the driving seat now if Grealish is worth £100m the H has got to come in at £160m at least!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think we need to be realistic here. I know that we Spurs fans value Kane at ridiculous prices, but let's face it, Grealish is 2 years younger than Kane. On a 5-year contract they'll get all of his prime years. With Kane they'll maybe get 3 or 4 years. So to think that Kane should be £60m more than Grealish is a bit pie-in-the-sky. If Grealish is £100m, then Kane probably maxes out at £130m. Just look at how much Real paid for Hazard (it was £100m), who was at a similar age as Kane and of a similar ilk as a player. If Kane and Grealish were the same age, then yes, £160m would sound about right.

Now if Levy can get £160m out of City, I will be delighted. But if he gets just £120-130, that's still a very good deal. £100m and Laporte and it is an excellent deal.

EDIT: also need to factor in the wages Kane and Grealish are on. The total cost for Kane, even at the same transfer fee, would be significantly higher.
 
Last edited:
Pathfinder said:
Last season Badiashile was very error-prone (i.e. error that lead to goals against) - but he's still young so should he join Spurs, well, we have to hope that he sorts out those errors...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd love for us to get Badiashile. I think £30 million might do it, but he's still very young for a CB and might not pan out. If his price was in the £15-20m range, it would have been definitely one to take a really hard look at.
 
Yid7 said:
Thought it was a foot spa. Could use it to keep the beers cold.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Clever GIF by memecandy
 
Strange how a figure of 160m, which was overheard by the showbiz editor of the Sun at Charlie Kane’s wedding, has become gospel and apparently said by Daniel Levy as what he would accept.
In reality we will never get 160m.
130m max I would think. Maybe not even that.
Now that City have got Grealish reportedly for 100m. The chance of Kane leaving has gone down somewhat.
Does anybody really think that Grealish is a 100m player. More like 70m I would have thought
 
Get in! said:
I think we need to be realistic here. I know that we Spurs fans value Kane at ridiculous prices, but let's face it, Grealish is 2 years younger than Kane. On a 5-year contract they'll get all of his prime years. With Kane they'll maybe get 3 or 4 years. So to think that Kane should be £60m more than Grealish is a bit pie-in-the-sky. If Grealish is £100m, then Kane probably maxes out at £130m. Just look at how much Real paid for Hazard (it was £100m), who was at a similar age as Kane and of a similar ilk as a player. If Kane and Grealish were the same age, then yes, £160m would sound about right.

Now if Levy can get £160m out of City, I will be delighted. But if he gets just £120-130, that's still a very good deal. £100m and Laporte and it is an excellent deal.

EDIT: also need to factor in the wages Kane and Grealish are on. The total cost for Kane, even at the same transfer fee, would be significantly higher.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nope Gooals =$ plus he is English so 5 years of Kane can easily be more valuable than 10 years of grealish
 
Perryman said:
Strange how a figure of 160m, which was overheard by the showbiz editor of the Sun at Charlie Kane’s wedding, has become gospel and apparently said by Daniel Levy as what he would accept.
In reality we will never get 160m.
130m max I would think. Maybe not even that.
Now that City have got Grealish reportedly for 100m. The chance of Kane leaving has gone down somewhat.
Does anybody really think that Grealish is a 100m player. More like 70m I would have thought
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Silva want leave Man City for Atletico , maybe they will have the money to buy Kane ..
 
Perryman said:
Strange how a figure of 160m, which was overheard by the showbiz editor of the Sun at Charlie Kane’s wedding, has become gospel and apparently said by Daniel Levy as what he would accept.
In reality we will never get 160m.
130m max I would think. Maybe not even that.
Now that City have got Grealish reportedly for 100m. The chance of Kane leaving has gone down somewhat.
Does anybody really think that Grealish is a 100m player. More like 70m I would have thought
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That was his release clause though so they had to pay it to get him. You’re right though. £70m much more like it for him.
 
Get in! said:
I think we need to be realistic here. I know that we Spurs fans value Kane at ridiculous prices, but let's face it, Grealish is 2 years younger than Kane. On a 5-year contract they'll get all of his prime years. With Kane they'll maybe get 3 or 4 years. So to think that Kane should be £60m more than Grealish is a bit pie-in-the-sky. If Grealish is £100m, then Kane probably maxes out at £130m. Just look at how much Real paid for Hazard (it was £100m), who was at a similar age as Kane and of a similar ilk as a player. If Kane and Grealish were the same age, then yes, £160m would sound about right.

Now if Levy can get £160m out of City, I will be delighted. But if he gets just £120-130, that's still a very good deal. £100m and Laporte and it is an excellent deal.

EDIT: also need to factor in the wages Kane and Grealish are on. The total cost for Kane, even at the same transfer fee, would be significantly higher.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It comes to what he is worth to us in the end. He is not only valuable as a player but club profile worldwide especially when it come to stadium naming rights etc
So dig your heels in Daniel!
 
TheSpurEst said:
Why wouldn't the money come around again? Why do think so?
Harry Kane is one of the best players in the game.
It happens that players don't get their move right away. Look at Modric, look at Hazard.

It does not mean that they would become worthless within one season time.

In current climate actually I assume that there would be more parties interested in one years time when part of the Corona issues have been left behind.

He can sulk around but he can also recognize that this will not suit his interests either. His value and future income will suffer because of that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The money wouldn't come around again because he'll be another year older with another year less remaining on his contract.
Unless he scored 50 goals and won the player of the year award, which he won't, his value will go down, not up.

I'd love to see Kane see out his 3 years at 100% but he wants out. And the only way he'll get out is to be as much of a pain in everyone's arse as he can.

And this may start the ball rolling for a sea change in contracts and transfers.

Put the boot on our foot- how many times has a player wanted to come to Spurs but we've just been priced out of it?
 
TheSpurEst said:
Umm... not really.

One thing is that HK is homegrown.

Other thing is that HK footballing brain, tehcnique and range of playing are all 3x of Lukakus.
RL is literally a (fit) donkey in football boots compared to Kane. Just look at some of Kane's passes for example.

If Lukaku is 120 then Kane is 200 if you ask me.
Not that we could realistically get that kind of money.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're forgetting that Harry Kane only plays 2/3 of a season, though.

£150M is fair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top