• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Harry Kane MBE

Raziel said:
In the end, we are all responsible for our own actions, so Kane needs to own it.

That said, as naïve as his actions were, I don't think anyone expected City to bid £75M for Kane while buying Grealish for £100M in same window, they truly hung him out to dry.
Click to expand...

The valuation of Harry compared to Grealish is indeed strange, and City seem to have the same opinion of his worth as my Manc and Scouse supporting mates. All despite the fact that he has been the best striker in the League for years. Supporters of other teams don't rate him nearly as highly as we do. It's all Salah this, Aguero this, etc. I've had many an argument when I'm informed that he's really not all that good, unbelievable really.

H would be simply better off staying with us and knuckling down to some hard work. We can deal with other fans giving him stick about claiming goals, being brick for England, even though he is the captain and leading goal scorer in World Cups and Euros.

It would be nice to put this episode behind us and remember it as a Stevie G style blip in the future.
 
thfcsteff said:
Again, to clarify my opinion on what happened here from the get-go, obviously this is. personal opinion and not fact for any legal beagles...

He was tapped up.
He was told that the bids would come.
He was told to stir the pot gently from his end (Sky interview).
He was further tapped up during Euros.
He was encouraged to set a price via the press.
He has been left wondering WTF his tappers are playing at.
His tappers have left him high and dry, likely telling him one thing but doing another.
His tappers still suggested he string it til the last day of the window because they still felt they could squeeze a deal.
He knows Levy won't budge because his tappers are undervaluing him.
He decided enough is enough and made his statement.

I think the extra week is a grey area, we will never know the full truth there.

I would not be surprised if Paratici has taken him for a meal and pointed out to both him and CK66 how poorly Emirates Marketing Project have behaved towards HIM and how they have fudged HIM around!

I think we all move on now.

Harry Kane, he's one that we own/one of our own.
Click to expand...
That and he really wanted to go there.

And, I would guess, he was informed that there was zero chance now.

Would expect more of the same next summer personally unless we have a transformative season.
 
DeanoAustin said:
The problem with that theory for me steff is what's in it for City?

1. They know Levy from the walker transfer. You won't get anything on the cheap.
2. Destabilise Spurs? We're not a threat to them. They'd be better off unsettling Salah or Pogba
3. Pep admitted they want Kane. They now look a bit silly in public because they've a week to go before deadline day and no sign of a striker they desperately need
4.Weaken Kanes relationship with us so they can go back for him? If they did as you said, they've tinkled off Kane and Levy so that'll make things hard.

I don't get what's in this for City as you've described. You've painted us to be faultless, which I think we pretty much were, and let Kane off the hook which I don't think he deserves.

I'm not sure what's happened here but Kanes behaviour hasn't been good and he doesnt deserve a pay rise or new contract. If I'm Hugo, who is a top class keeper and a world Cup winner and been very loyal to us and I'm not getting a contract and Harry is...well that's an awful message to send.

I think the Kanes have been out of their depth here and that explains their odd handling of the situation. Has Charlie Kane ever negotiated a major transfer before or even a transfer of any kind?
Click to expand...

So my perspective

- this was a predatory bid (said it before), City may have felt we were fudged financially and they could profit from that.
- I do believe there wasn't complete agreement between Pep & City on approach (who wanted and who didn't, I can't say), interesting timing re Pep saying he now isn't going to renew his contract

While Kane's behaviour has been distasteful and clearly not well handled, it's not unusual in football (see Gerard, Messi, Ronaldo, Mbappe, list goes on), if he buckles down and plays how we know he can, it's just a bump in the road long term, so I don't agree with the whole message sending thing.

The interesting conversation with Kane is what does the future hold now?
- Have we just punted this a year? ala Modric
- Or with Paratici and Nuno, if we make progress in the next year both on field as well as doing the refresh, building the squad, would he be inclined to stay longer term?

The answer to that could build a contract model that makes sense for both Spurs and Kane.
 
Raziel said:
So my perspective

- this was a predatory bid (said it before), City may have felt we were fudged financially and they could profit from that.
- I do believe there wasn't complete agreement between Pep & City on approach (who wanted and who didn't, I can't say), interesting timing re Pep saying he now isn't going to renew his contract

While Kane's behaviour has been distasteful and clearly not well handled, it's not unusual in football (see Gerard, Messi, Ronaldo, Mbappe, list goes on), if he buckles down and plays how we know he can, it's just a bump in the road long term, so I don't agree with the whole message sending thing.

The interesting conversation with Kane is what does the future hold now?
- Have we just punted this a year? ala Modric
- Or with Paratici and Nuno, if we make progress in the next year both on field as well as doing the refresh, building the squad, would he be inclined to stay longer term?

The answer to that could build a contract model that makes sense for both Spurs and Kane.
Click to expand...

City have intelligent people running their club. They've dealt with Levy before. Us letting Kane go for 50%-66% of what we believe his market value is was never going to be a runner. Especially in a market where Ben White went for 50m, Lukaku for almost 100m and City themselves paid 100m for Jack Grealish. That's Leeds fire sale stuff and we are nowhere near that fudged financially. Plus our accounts are in the public domain. The theory doesn't stack up for me.
 
Putting aside that footballers are overpaid, I've no problem with him getting 400k a week, it's inline with what players at his level get.
But if he does get the raise it needs to be with a contract extension and any release clause has to be for a world record, again inline with what he's being paid.
 
DeanoAustin said:
City have intelligent people running their club. They've dealt with Levy before. Us letting Kane go for 50%-66% of what we believe his market value is was never going to be a runner. Especially in a market where Ben White went for 50m, Lukaku for almost 100m and City themselves paid 100m for Jack Grealish. That's Leeds fire sale stuff and we are nowhere near that fudged financially. Plus our accounts are in the public domain. The theory doesn't stack up for me.
Click to expand...

While all that may be true, that's the kind of bid they made.

I've worked long enough with companies bigger than City to not buy in to the assumption that "intelligent people" are running anything, especially a club that is partially state, partially family run.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
If the is not then we have failed massively, the good chance is that a Kane who has played as much football as he has over the last few years, particularly in Poch high pressing team and with his injuries. I would be amazed if he played to anywhere close the standard he did last season.
Click to expand...
The amount of injuries he's had are always over stated.

2020-21 49 games
2019-20 34 games
2018-19 40 games
2017-18 48 games

Throw in England games and that is a lot of football played for a supposedly injury prone player with dodgy ankles. it's just the usual if people repeat it enough it will be believed and nobody bothers to fact check anything.

As a player that doesn't rely on his pace, it's more about his football intelligence and looks after himself I see him continuing well into his thirties.
 
DubSpur said:
The amount of injuries he's had are always over stated.

2020-21 49 games
2019-20 34 games
2018-19 40 games
2017-18 48 games

Throw in England games and that is a lot of football played for a supposedly injury prone player with dodgy ankles. it's just the usual if people repeat it enough it will be believed and nobody bothers to fact check anything.

As a player that doesn't rely on his pace, it's more about his football intelligence and looks after himself I see him continuing well into his thirties.
Click to expand...

If we had a second striker that we could rotate with him, would only add to his ability to extend his career.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
If the is not then we have failed massively, the good chance is that a Kane who has played as much football as he has over the last few years, particularly in Poch high pressing team and with his injuries. I would be amazed if he played to anywhere close the standard he did last season.
Click to expand...
Mate.... we'll probably not see a better striker playing for Spurs in our lifetimes. He is as good a player as any team could hope for.
 
Nigeyman said:
Nor me.

It doesn’t exactly send out the greatest message to our squad if shoddy behaviour is rewarded financially.

Levy needs to keep ignoring calls, maybe hide under the desk if someone be knocking at the door.
Click to expand...
We don't actually know how 'shoddy' Kane's behaviour was though.

I think the fact that the club didn't fine Kane for coming back late from his holiday probably indicates that he wasn't actually late back from his holiday. I think the club expected City to stump up the money this summer (hence the initial work that we had done on several expensive transfer targets) and it suited the club for Kane to be painted in a bad light so that our supporters would be less angry when we sold him (and I think the tactic probably worked if we look at the reaction on here).

I don't doubt that Kane wanted to leave Spurs, I'm just not convinced that he refused to return to training on time this summer.
 
scaramanga said:
No point setting a release clause, football inflation can happen virtually overnight.

£120M now might be a pittance in a year's time. His release clause should be "a sum larger than the record transfer fee at that point."

He has 3 years on his contract, we get to dictate the terms of any renewal. If he wants a new contract with a release clause (and therefore a less valuable contract to us) then he can take a pay cut to balance it. If he wants a pay rise, no release clause.
Click to expand...
That is true now but becomes less so in a year's time. If it then goes beyond next summer then the cards become very firmly stacked in Kane's favour. Any good negotiation sees both parties thinking they have won. I'm sure there is a deal to be done here where that happens.
 
Finney Is Back said:
We don't actually know how 'shoddy' Kane's behaviour was though.

I think the fact that the club didn't fine Kane for coming back late from his holiday probably indicates that he wasn't actually late back from his holiday. I think the club expected City to stump up the money this summer (hence the initial work that we had done on several expensive transfer targets) and it suited the club for Kane to be painted in a bad light so that our supporters would be less angry when we sold him (and I think the tactic probably worked if we look at the reaction on here).

I don't doubt that Kane wanted to leave Spurs, I'm just not convinced that he refused to return to training on time this summer.
Click to expand...

Story is he was fines two weeks wages (maximum allowed) - in Athletic's piece
 
Raziel said:
So my perspective

- this was a predatory bid (said it before), City may have felt we were fudged financially and they could profit from that.
- I do believe there wasn't complete agreement between Pep & City on approach (who wanted and who didn't, I can't say), interesting timing re Pep saying he now isn't going to renew his contract

While Kane's behaviour has been distasteful and clearly not well handled, it's not unusual in football (see Gerard, Messi, Ronaldo, Mbappe, list goes on), if he buckles down and plays how we know he can, it's just a bump in the road long term, so I don't agree with the whole message sending thing.

The interesting conversation with Kane is what does the future hold now?
- Have we just punted this a year? ala Modric
- Or with Paratici and Nuno, if we make progress in the next year both on field as well as doing the refresh, building the squad, would he be inclined to stay longer term?

The answer to that could build a contract model that makes sense for both Spurs and Kane.
Click to expand...

I think we’d have to get top 4 and possibly win something for him to even consider staying. If we were to challenge for the title it might convince him that last season was a blip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back