He's English, home grown and proven in the Premier League. That adds quite a lot to his fee. Like I said, Liverpool paid more than that for Lallana - not a goalscoring midfielder, at 26... Kane would go for much more I think.
Dybala has scored fewer Serie A goals than Kane has scored Premier League goals, not sure I'm convinced by your comparison.
Adebayor/Gomes moments are not really relevant to what I'm talking about here...
Kane being english will add a few more millions, but if he really could command a fee in excess of 25m, do you really think he would have accpeted a 40/50k pw deal? name me one other young english player who would have done so. because hes english and been on a fine run of form, and because he seems a nice bloke, hes being massively overrated atm. hes the proto-typical overhyped english player in every sense (at the moment). when people talk about overrating english players, harry kane is exactly the type of player they are referring to. once a bit of time has passed, people will realise this.
Dybala has scored fewer goals, and yet i still think hes worth more. he has proven his level over a longer period of time.
His contract runs out in the summer 2 years from now, right? By refusing to sign now and stopping negotiations he's essentially saying that next negotiations will be during or after the summer transfer window. The summer transfer window essentially starts at the end of this season. That's a couple of months away, at best, for Liverpool. With little action in the January transfer windows that leaves this summer window if they want to get maximum value in the transfer market, that definitely increased the pressure on the club. The same was the situation for us with Carrick and Berbatov when they refused to sign new contracts with two years left, for financially well run clubs that two year mark is a breaking point.
I think Arsenal would have gotten significantly more, or flat out refused to sell to rivals, for RvP, Clichy and Nasri. I don't think those sales have been good deals in isolation and I think they were only made because of the contract situations.
Disagree that all clubs would be in turmoil. Most clubs, like ours, try to keep important players that are young or relatively young and performing really well on contracts with more than two years left.
according to transfermarkt.com, rvp moved for £27m, nasri for £24m, and clichy £7m. i agree that arsenal probably wouldnt have wanted to lose all of them, but to suggest that they would have got signifcantly more for these players (had their contracts been longer) is wrong imo. and they didnt have to incur the costs of administrating a new contract (ie. signing fees/ agent fees), as well as paying higher wages for the period until they sold the player (if they wanted to do so), which they would have done if they wanted to extend the players' contracts.
in the same way, had liverpool offered sterling a new deal last season, they would have incurred a bunch of these costs. yes they would probably receive a higher transfer fee, but a large part of it would be offset by these contract renogiation costs imo. and another benefit of not having offered him a new bumper deal last year (when he wasnt as proven) was that they didnt take on the risk of having an "adebayor-scenario".
i think this debate is simple really. in which of these scenarios would there be an issue at liverpool right now:
- if sterling was already on 120k and had 2 and a half years left.
- or, do you think there would be more of an issue if sterling was on 35k, but had 5 years still left on his contract?
for me its obviously the latter. This whole situation is simply about a player who thinks hes one of the best young players in europe, but being underpaid. and the friction is arising because liverpool dont have the financial capacity to pay for one of the best young players in europe.
unless liverpool change their wage structure, i dont think these two parties will be compatible, and sterling will probably have to move on.
