• 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

DaveT316 said:
It wouldn’t surprise me and that we’re taking the Bale approach of spending the Kane money gradually before he goes at the deadline. I struggle to see how we couldn’t afford a Dias / Skriniar type this time last year and are now seemingly about to drop the same sort of figure on Romero without a real cash injection from somewhere. It’s conceivable that a soon-to-be-announced sponsorship may help here, but to me, the more likely answer is that Kane is gone.
Click to expand...
New ST sales that didn’t happen last year
New sponsorship arrangements
No rebates back to TV companies
There are a number of things
And we didn’t sell many players last summer for real £££
But that doesn’t mean we haven’t done a bale of course
 
DaveT316 said:
It wouldn’t surprise me and that we’re taking the Bale approach of spending the Kane money gradually before he goes at the deadline. I struggle to see how we couldn’t afford a Dias / Skriniar type this time last year and are now seemingly about to drop the same sort of figure on Romero without a real cash injection from somewhere. It’s conceivable that a soon-to-be-announced sponsorship may help here, but to me, the more likely answer is that Kane is gone.
Click to expand...

Even if you / I are wrong its still the most plausible situation.

I just hope that we are buying quality over quantity, I am enjoying the current names linked.

Just to add I doubt if we were on a shoestring budget we would be buying a player like Brian Gil where other parts of the team need immediate attention.
 
DaveT316 said:
It wouldn’t surprise me and that we’re taking the Bale approach of spending the Kane money gradually before he goes at the deadline. I struggle to see how we couldn’t afford a Dias / Skriniar type this time last year and are now seemingly about to drop the same sort of figure on Romero without a real cash injection from somewhere. It’s conceivable that a soon-to-be-announced sponsorship may help here, but to me, the more likely answer is that Kane is gone.
Click to expand...
If we are spending the Kane money prior to him departing then we'd better hurry up and start actually spending it!
 
billyiddo said:
We couldn't afford a Skriniar type last summer because we already had a high net spend - if the loans have covered our covid losses then in theory we can hope for a similar net spend to the previous two seasons (160m net over over the two)
Click to expand...

So why did we even try to get a player like Skirinar or Diaz in the first place? I think we were just not competent in the market to get the deals done. However, I hope that we have Patrici to bridge the gap and secure the transfers required.
 
Gazza said:
So why did we even try to get a player like Skirinar or Diaz in the first place? I think we were just not competent in the market to get the deals done. However, I hope that we have Patrici to bridge the gap and secure the transfers required.
Click to expand...

Idk - in the hope we could bargain them down to an amount we could afford?
 
Finney Is Back said:
If we are spending the Kane money prior to him departing then we'd better hurry up and start actually spending it!
Click to expand...
I reckon Romero will be in soon, and Tomiyasu will follow after the Olympics. Then it just depends on timing as if we push too hard, too soon for someone like Vlahovic it may give off a whiff to the buying club they have more time to eek more from us as Kane is off.

After the first two, I’m not expecting much movement till later in the window when we’re clearer on who’s still left in the squad / hasn’t gone and therefore what positions need filling.
 
billyiddo said:
Idk - in the hope we could bargain them down to an amount we could afford?
Click to expand...

Maybe, but being prices quoted for Skirinar and Diaz were known to be in excess of £40m + before we even spoke to them, surely we didnt go to them and lowballed them to fudge, not levy, not having it.

But even to bargain with them would take some desperation on their clubs behalf. But hey ho none of us know the budgets .. lets leave it to the experts on twitter and ITKs
 
Bedfordspurs said:
I think it’s certainly a big part of that
Kane’s people know city want him
We know city want him
City want him
City don’t want to pay the fee we have set….
Somehow people think the deal will still happen for less money…
The fee and bar has been set publicly and even though clubs don’t declare the big fees anymore, there is no way that Levy will budge much at all and city still want to save face
City’s issue is everyone knows they can afford the £160m. But they believe they don’t pay more than the6 should for players hence why they lost out on maguire and VVD. They are not going to be outbid here, but they also don’t want to break the £100m bracket, so the whole thing is in limbo.
Click to expand...

See, the thing is, (and I may be totally wrong), City =/= Pep

Does City want Kane = I think so, I think the people who's agenda is winning the CL see Kane as the final piece
Does Pep really want Kane = Pep has never been a guy for strikers, he wants false 9s, he has had a love/hate relationship with Aquero for years, basically Aquero's output forced him to play him, but even in the end it surfaced again, the minute Aquero said he was leaving Pep cut his playing time back (now he had an excuse)
Would Pep take Kane in his squad = absolutely, any manager would, but big difference between I would take a guy and I want my club focused on this guy and spending our biggest fee ever on him.

The Kane deal isn't hard to do, so if they do Grealish first, to me it says a lot about priorities.
 
Raziel said:
See, the thing is, (and I may be totally wrong), City =/= Pep

Does City want Kane = I think so, I think the people who's agenda is winning the CL see Kane as the final piece
Does Pep really want Kane = Pep has never been a guy for strikers, he wants false 9s, he has had a love/hate relationship with Aquero for years, basically Aquero's output forced him to play him, but even in the end it surfaced again, the minute Aquero said he was leaving Pep cut his playing time back (now he had an excuse)
Would Pep take Kane in his squad = absolutely, any manager would, but big difference between I would take a guy and I want my club focused on this guy and spending our biggest fee ever on him.

The Kane deal isn't hard to do, so if they do Grealish first, to me it says a lot about priorities.
Click to expand...
Could be
Not sure TBH
But then pep doesnt buy the players at city although I’m sure he is in the process
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Could be
Not sure TBH
But then pep doesnt buy the players at city although I’m sure he is in the process
Click to expand...

None of us know mate .. that's part of the frustration and fun.

I was trying to explain the slightly mixed messaging out of City, because I agree with you last line.

I'm still not seeing it, I know City has wiped their ass with FFP, but two British transfer records in a Covid window? fudging hell
 
Raziel said:
Easily, but again really highlights City's priorities and how they operate when they really want a player.

£80M would have been an aggressive bid for Grealish, to come in at £100M is saying you want the guy, you want to do the deal quickly and you are serious.

Compare that to their approach on Kane.
Click to expand...

they spent the whole year tapping Kane up and expected Levy to fold due to gentlemans agreement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back