[Football] Manchester City ready to pay €150m to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham

[PeakGull]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/aug/12/manchester-city-ready-to-pay-150m-to-sign-harry-kane-from-tottenham

 

[beorhthelm]

£110m.

i dont understand why they think he's worth that, even accounting for the bonkers state of player transfer fees. is Kane really the best forward you can sign for £110m?

 

[Bakero]

£110m.

i dont understand why they think he's worth that, even accounting for the bonkers state of player transfer fees. is Kane really the best forward you can sign for £110m?

Probably.

 

[Badger Boy]

£110m.

i dont understand why they think he's worth that, even accounting for the bonkers state of player transfer fees. is Kane really the best forward you can sign for £110m?

Yes. Of course he is. Kane in that team guarantees the title and would challenge PSG for the Champions League. His character off the pitch is worth just as much as his performances and ability on it. He is worth every penny.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

£110m.

i dont understand why they think he's worth that, even accounting for the bonkers state of player transfer fees. is Kane really the best forward you can sign for £110m?

More importantly, is FFP over now then?

 

[BBassic]

Madness. Football eating itself etc etc.

 

[nickbrighton]

More importantly, is FFP over now then?

1.FFP doesnt apply to Man City
2. Yes it was scrapped due to Covid and clubs making massive losses
3.When it comes back, rule 1 applies

 

[nickbrighton]

Yes. Of course he is. Kane in that team guarantees the title and would challenge PSG for the Champions League. His character off the pitch is worth just as much as his performances and ability on it. He is worth every penny.

But does it really?
Yes he is a great striker, but how many more goals would he score than City would have got anyway-its not like they are lacking firepower is it? And even if he does score a hatful more than whoever he replaces, it just means they win by more goals not that they win more games-or not many

I'm now(and have been for a while) convinced that the big clubs are now buying players not necessarily because they need them, but to stop them going elsewhere.

Say City spend a total of £210 000 000 just on Grealish and Kane, how much more do they have to win, and how many extra shirts do they have to sell to even break even?

I don't think they are £210million of good, and certainly wont improve city by that amount

 

[dazzer6666]

But does it really?
Yes he is a great striker, but how many more goals would he score than City would have got anyway-its not like they are lacking firepower is it? And even if he does score a hatful more than whoever he replaces, it just means they win by more goals not that they win more games-or not many

I'm now(and have been for a while) convinced that the big clubs are now buying players not necessarily because they need them, but to stop them going elsewhere.

Say City spend a total of £210 000 000 just on Grealish and Kane, how much more do they have to win, and how many extra shirts do they have to sell to even break even?

I don't think they are £210million of good, and certainly wont improve city by that amount

The owners don’t genuinely give two ***** about breaking even, they just want to win everything. Whatever the number, it’s basically pocket change.

 

[BBassic]

But does it really?
Yes he is a great striker, but how many more goals would he score than City would have got anyway-its not like they are lacking firepower is it? And even if he does score a hatful more than whoever he replaces, it just means they win by more goals not that they win more games-or not many

I'm now(and have been for a while) convinced that the big clubs are now buying players not necessarily because they need them, but to stop them going elsewhere.

Say City spend a total of £210 000 000 just on Grealish and Kane, how much more do they have to win, and how many extra shirts do they have to sell to even break even?

I don't think they are £210million of good, and certainly wont improve city by that amount

Kane has averaged 23 goals a season since 2014. He would get City close to 100 goals a season probably. Plus that'd be taking 23 goals away from Spurs.

It's a no brainer for a team with the money that City have available.

 

[Superphil]

I'm now(and have been for a while) convinced that the big clubs are now buying players not necessarily because they need them, but to stop them going elsewhere.

Say City spend a total of £210 000 000 just on Grealish and Kane, how much more do they have to win, and how many extra shirts do they have to sell to even break even?

I don't think they are £210million of good, and certainly wont improve city by that amount

They and others have been trying to buy all the talent to ensure that they can't be challenged,

 

[LamieRobertson]

Chelsea confirm signing Lukaku for £97.5m so is Kane at £110m so outrageous?

Football has gone a bit mad though….but no change there

 

[Chicken Run]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/aug/12/manchester-city-ready-to-pay-150m-to-sign-harry-kane-from-tottenham

Good luck to them, it won’t it I truly hope it all ends in tears


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Badger Boy]

But does it really?
Yes he is a great striker, but how many more goals would he score than City would have got anyway-its not like they are lacking firepower is it? And even if he does score a hatful more than whoever he replaces, it just means they win by more goals not that they win more games-or not many

I'm now(and have been for a while) convinced that the big clubs are now buying players not necessarily because they need them, but to stop them going elsewhere.

Say City spend a total of £210 000 000 just on Grealish and Kane, how much more do they have to win, and how many extra shirts do they have to sell to even break even?

I don't think they are £210million of good, and certainly wont improve city by that amount

I think you're totally, totally wrong. Harry Kane would improve almost any team but he would certainly improve City's team. He's a fantastic footballer, the fee is obviously madness and hard for anyone to defend. But of course he's worth the investment for them and if they sweep the domestic trophies again and even pick up the Champions League then they'll consider that a good return. As others have mentioned, they don't really have a business model. They spend, spend, spend and to hell with the consequences.

 

[Solid at the back]

Haaland would be better value

 

[Happy Exile]

This rates a single player at a higher value than the entire Burnley squad. Kane and Grealish together as worth more than both Norwich and Burnley squads combined. If this goes ahead and City get beaten by anyone, but especially by those outside the top 6, it'll be a cause for all supporters to celebrate.

 

[Silverhatch]

This rates a single player at a higher value than the entire Burnley squad. Kane and Grealish together as worth more than both Norwich and Burnley squads combined. If this goes ahead and City get beaten by anyone, but especially by those outside the top 6, it'll be a cause for all supporters to celebrate.

We beat 'em with half our team missing. No ****ing problem.

 

[Swansman]

Dont think he will score as many league goals as in Tottenham. Pretty difficult to play CF against teams that defend low with 11 players. Should be really nice for their CL adventures though.

 

[studio150]

The worry for any team looking to sign a striker, is the transfer inflation that will follow if Kane is sold for £110m. So no problem for us......

 

[daveinprague]

I'm old enough to remember being shocked when Trevor Francis was sold for a million. These figures are mind boggling. One player can't be worth more than it cost to build the Amex. It's crazy.