• 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

I like the idea that this could be a stunt initiated by Spurs...and City confirming that they wouldnt pat £160m is exactly what we want.

Means Kane realises City wont meet the asking price, and stops the story lingering on. Gets the issue out of hte way before the season starts and helps him focus on Spurs
 
SpurMeUp said:
So which is it?

1# We've been here before, hush the deal up and buy players, Bale sale mark II.

2# We are intent on keeping Kane for another season.

Both are possible. The playbook seems remarkably similar to Bale-sale. However, you'd expect us to have actually signed some players by now, and be linked with forwards. Ings is about the only one so far. And we haven't actually signed anyone other than a keeper. Regardless of Kane we need a CB, so CB rumours make sense too. We'd be buying one if Kane stayed.

So hard to call this one. Only a few people know. But, it does seem odd that someone would let slip to a journalist at a wedding. With all the details of the deal. So it looks like a silly season tabloid story to fill pages. There isn't any benefit to Kane's people to release the story (and who'd tell a journalist by accident) plus Levy would have put in some clauses (with penalities?) about keeping things schtum.
Click to expand...
I’d say it’s neither
We’re doing out business as we need too
And we will sell Kane if city pay the fee we’re happy with. We have replacement options lined up if so
I’d also say it highlights the danger of agents doing their business in the rags unless their the kind of agents that clubs need
 
Lilbaz said:
Our transfer spending the summer before covid is what levy thought we could afford. Which was £75m. Forget that it is in installments as any player we buy now will be installments.
So £75m is the baseline of what we think we can afford in the transfer market with the income from the new stadium.

So £75m normal budget without covid.
Covid costs the club £200m from lost revenue (according to levy himself, this summer).
+£175m from the boe loan (which could not be spent on transfers).
+£250m loan (which can be spent on transfers)
-£175 to pay back the boe loan.

That leaves us £125m in hand and a debt of £250m that has to be paid back over the 20-30 years.

Now i'm not saying that we have a budget of £125m for players. But spending £60m is feasable and doesn't require the sale of kane.
Click to expand...
It's not quite as simple as that though....

When we spent money in 2019 we didn't envisage covid at all.
When we spent money in 2020 I don't think it was envisaged that covid would keep things locked down for so long (we were out of lockdown with hospital cases coming right down).
For year to June 2020 we lost £63m (managing to play games all the way through to March and competing in the CL).
For year to June 2021 we will likely lose a lot more than that (probably upwards of £120m - Arsenal are predicting that they will have a loss of around £160m).

Gil + Romero + Tomiyasu + Golath = ~£80m. Of course only around a third of that is likely to be payable up front but if you combine that with the £50+ million of instalments we need to pay for our signings from 2019 and 2020 I don't see where the cashflow comes from. Unless the strategy of ENIC is to load us with even more debt if we happen to go into another lockdown? And I just don't see how our club can carry more debt (we are already the most indebted football club in the World). One cannot really ever accuse Levy of not being financially prudent, I simply cannot see him taking a big gamble that covid is now over in terms of its impact on stadium events and not keeping a considerable portion of the loan in cash reserves in order to ensure that we can weather out another storm if it arrives.
 
SpurMeUp said:
So which is it?

1# We've been here before, hush the deal up and buy players, Bale sale mark II.

2# We are intent on keeping Kane for another season.

Both are possible. The playbook seems remarkably similar to Bale-sale. However, you'd expect us to have actually signed some players by now, and be linked with forwards. Ings is about the only one so far. And we haven't actually signed anyone other than a keeper. Regardless of Kane we need a CB, so CB rumours make sense too. We'd be buying one if Kane stayed.

So hard to call this one. Only a few people know. But, it does seem odd that someone would let slip to a journalist at a wedding. With all the details of the deal. So it looks like a silly season tabloid story to fill pages. There isn't any benefit to Kane's people to release the story (and who'd tell a journalist by accident) plus Levy would have put in some clauses (with penalities?) about keeping things schtum.
Click to expand...
She's not just a journalist but a family friend....
 
Bedfordspurs said:
I disagree
As @Finney Is Back has said it’s come via someone the Kane’s know. She was at Charlie’s wedding if the rumours are true
But as I’ve also said it’s Levy’s way of calling city’s/Harry’s bluff
Harry you can go for £160m…. Sort that deal out with city.
City want Kane but don’t want to pay
Kane is now somewhere in the middle
Click to expand...

It's come from Charlie, the same as every other story about this.
 
JerusalemMan said:
I'd be inclined to think that the first batch (around the time of the £100 million bid stories) was encouraged by City.
Yesterday's story definitely seems instigated by Charlie.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that the two stories in the Athletic earlier in the year came from Kane's camp
 
Finney Is Back said:
She's not just a journalist but a family friend....
Click to expand...

If the deal is done, and there are some contractual obligations/penalities to leaking it, where is the benefit to the Kane camp? The benefit to the journalist is clear, they run a story. Just not sure what any party gains from the story, other than the Sun who's readership has been dropping.
 
milo said:
It's come from Charlie, the same as every other story about this.
Click to expand...
Charlie to the sun reporter who is a family friend
Admittedly she normally reports on vajazzles and fake tan…
But as I said earlier to me it’s levy playing a game
Charlie, Harry can go for £160m…
Charlie then thinks he has a master plan forgetting that city have some delusional pride that they don’t spend big money
The deal doesn’t happen and levy tells Harry I made it possible for you but your agent couldn’t get the deal done
 
SpurMeUp said:
If the deal is done, and there are some contractual obligations/penalities to leaking it, where is the benefit to the Kane camp? The benefit to the journalist is clear, they run a story. Just not sure what any party gains from the story, other than the Sun who's readership has been dropping.
Click to expand...

Unless it's under some kind of NDA (highly unlikely I would have thought), where secrecy is the actual aim, who would agree to penalties in respect of leaks? Given the number of individuals who will be involved, I'd be surprised if anyone were to agree to that.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Charlie to the sun reporter who is a family friend
Admittedly she normally reports on vajazzles and fake tan…
But as I said earlier to me it’s levy playing a game
Charlie, Harry can go for £160m…
Charlie then thinks he has a master plan forgetting that city have some delusional pride that they don’t spend big money
The deal doesn’t happen and levy tells Harry I made it possible for you but your agent couldn’t get the deal done
Click to expand...

Plus -> the club that claimed to want you has outright said they wouldn't pay "anything near that price"
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Unless it's under some kind of NDA (highly unlikely I would have thought), where secrecy is the actual aim, who would agree to penalties in respect of leaks? Given the number of individuals who will be involved, I'd be surprised if anyone were to agree to that.
Click to expand...

If you were Levy, and needed to spend 160m effectively, why wouldn't you put in an NDA? A contract is just an agreement. And the agreement is the sale is not announced or leaked until x time.
 
Finney Is Back said:
It's not quite as simple as that though....

When we spent money in 2019 we didn't envisage covid at all.
When we spent money in 2020 I don't think it was envisaged that covid would keep things locked down for so long (we were out of lockdown with hospital cases coming right down).
For year to June 2020 we lost £63m (managing to play games all the way through to March and competing in the CL).
For year to June 2021 we will likely lose a lot more than that (probably upwards of £120m - Arsenal are predicting that they will have a loss of around £160m).

Gil + Romero + Tomiyasu + Golath = ~£80m. Of course only around a third of that is likely to be payable up front but if you combine that with the £50+ million of instalments we need to pay for our signings from 2019 and 2020 I don't see where the cashflow comes from. Unless the strategy of ENIC is to load us with even more debt if we happen to go into another lockdown? And I just don't see how our club can carry more debt (we are already the most indebted football club in the World). One cannot really ever accuse Levy of not being financially prudent, I simply cannot see him taking a big gamble that covid is now over in terms of its impact on stadium events and not keeping a considerable portion of the loan in cash reserves in order to ensure that we can weather out another storm if it arrives.
Click to expand...

Levy has told us last month how much covid has cost us. £200m in lost revenue.
So it is that simple to work out what covid cost us. Levy has told us.

We just sold foyth and got some money for edwards which works out around £18m.

As for how clubs want to be paid, that's speculation. But even so. For the purpose of our accounts the cost of the player will be spread over his contract (player amortization). We also have cash due to the loan.

As i've said, levy may not decide to spend the money on transfers. But he can if he wanted to.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
If you were Levy, and needed to spend 160m effectively, why wouldn't you put in an NDA? A contract is just an agreement. And the agreement is the sale is not announced or leaked until x time.
Click to expand...
Trying to enforce an NDA in the football world I believe would be nigh on impossible
There is too many people speculating facts or fiction to make it policeable
What’s comedy gold on this one is it’s at Kane’s brothers wedding FFS. What a place to talk business with a reporter even if she is a friend.
My wife would kill me if she thought I was doing business on our wedding day
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Trying to enforce an NDA in the football world I believe would be nigh on impossible
There is too many people speculating facts or fiction to make it policeable
What’s comedy gold on this one is it’s at Kane’s brothers wedding FFS. What a place to talk business with a reporter even if she is a friend.
My wife would kill me if she thought I was doing business on our wedding day
Click to expand...

Guessing they were tinkled. Someone might have just been on a wind up. Or she just made it up? Or it's true. Who knows.

Until they have a picture with the shirt it's just speculation to me.
 
Lilbaz said:
Guessing they were tinkled. Someone might have just been on a wind up. Or she just made it up? Or it's true. Who knows.

Until they have a picture with the shirt it's just speculation to me.
Click to expand...
I believe it’s true
As in that levy has said £160m
I’m not sure everything else is true and city have quite vehemently denied it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back