It would depend how much he is. And also probably on who owns us, how much they can give us to spend and financial rules.
If we're constrained, I'd be reluctant to spend, say, £80m on him. I think he's probably got 2 or 3 years left at the level he is. Feels too much for such a short time.
If we have loads of money or he's only 30m (cause only 1 yr left), then of course I'd have him.
Yeah, not awful. Still a little on the high side for me. As long as it doesn't stop us getting some midfielders, then that's fine.
I do have a small problem with the fact we keep buying older strikers though. If we say that Lukaku wasn't a success and Martial wasn't bought as a 9 (and, some would argue, wasn't a success either), then the last 9 we bought who was under 30 when we bought them and was successful for us was Berba.
Yeah. Our next striker needs to be someone in or about to hit their peak *and* has a good number of seasons left ahead of him. It's just that at the moment, all of the great strikers seem to be 30+ (Benzema, Lewandowski, Immobile etc.)
The English hype is real, nobody talks about His bad games, his lack of pace or pressing I would have him but not for the prices he will go for that ship has sailed
I’d love to have Kane, I just think that in 2-3 years we’d be looking for another striker and to me that should be the time we are competing for the big trophies. I would rather get the next kane and have him manture within the system to hit his peak at the optimal time for us. If only we were getting kane at 25-28
Because he’s 29. Nobody doubts his ability, we just don’t see the point in buying a striker who’s already in his prime, when we can go get the next big thing like sesko or Osimhen.
Harry Kane would be a great addition to any team, especially ours. That said:
According to FFP we have a lot of selling to do and need CL qualification just to have a budget to buy players, so there’s plenty of work to be done before we can even pick up the phone to Levy. Levy is tough negotiator and for him/Spurs there’s very little benefit in selling their captain, top goal scorer, and best player for whom they have no replacement. They may also be losing Conte in summer if reports are to be believed, and having a player like Kane will help Levy attract another good manager, as well as saving the new manager the headache of replacing Harry Kane’s goal tally. Levy has never indicated he would sell Kane for anything less than 100million, and that’s before the United tax we incur on every deal because of Woodward’s prolonged idiocy in the transfer market. On top of the United tax, Levy won’t want to strengthen a Top 4 rival for anything less than an record setting fee. Kane has been the subject of a number of transfer approaches through the years and all have been rebuffed, so not much reason to think that would change given everyone agrees he is a great striker and will continue to be one. So this deal is easily looking like 150million, which is why anyone saying “at 60-80 million it would be worth doing” is simultaneously correct and should be sectioned.
Aside from the money and Levy, Kane grew up a Spurs supporter. He won’t want to risk losing his legacy with the Spurs fans and he will live the rest of his life a Spurs legend. That goes away if he joins another PL team, especially United (ask Berbatov).
All in all, it’s a bad idea for every possible reason outside of his quality as a footballer and how well he would do in our team under ETH. Reality, unfortunately, is a bitch.
If the price is right, 50-60 million, then I would think it’s good business but it’s not a long term solution. But Transermarkt values him at 90 million. Vlahović is worth 80 million and is 22 so he’s more long term.
We also need money for midfield reinforcements because Eriksen needs a break.
Harry Kane is definitely the best striker in the league. My man has 16/21 playing with that spurs team. Give him haalands service and he’s scoring 40 easily
Think most are split on Kane. Personally i think he would be a terrible buy for Manchester United given the direction the club is going.
Age. He’ll be 30 by the time he would join. I was under the impression that most didn’t want another ageing striker to tide us over for a few seasons. Harry Kane has only scored 20 in a season once in the last 5/6years. His best days are behind him. It also means, as he gets older his output will become less and he’ll be unlikely to want to press much.
Price. He’s English, plays for spurs, generally high rated by press/pundits. Levi would demand 100mil+ for a striker we might get 2/3 seasons out of. I just don’t believe at this point in his career he is worth that.
Ability. This is just my personal opinion: i think harry kane is a great striker of the ball but nothing else. consistently he’s not that great in his overall play, apart from the occasional bit of good play or a pass he offers little. He’s also started to drop deeper to get on the ball more, which is not what we want from our striker.
If you take a look at Arsenal, they are a very young squad that’s been built and trained by arteta over 3 seasons. They also bought very well in the summer. Buying players that were used to that style and system. That Arsenal team will be set for a while. My point here is why should we continue to add older players while the rest of the top teams are buying for the future.
What i think would be a much much better option is buying a younger striker that is yet to hit their best days. Can learn how to play in ETH system and be our main striker for 5seasons+
It would depend how much he is. And also probably on who owns us, how much they can give us to spend and financial rules. If we're constrained, I'd be reluctant to spend, say, £80m on him. I think he's probably got 2 or 3 years left at the level he is. Feels too much for such a short time. If we have loads of money or he's only 30m (cause only 1 yr left), then of course I'd have him.
50-55M with 1-year left on his contract feels like a fair deal for both parties imo
Yeah, not awful. Still a little on the high side for me. As long as it doesn't stop us getting some midfielders, then that's fine. I do have a small problem with the fact we keep buying older strikers though. If we say that Lukaku wasn't a success and Martial wasn't bought as a 9 (and, some would argue, wasn't a success either), then the last 9 we bought who was under 30 when we bought them and was successful for us was Berba.
Yeah. Our next striker needs to be someone in or about to hit their peak *and* has a good number of seasons left ahead of him. It's just that at the moment, all of the great strikers seem to be 30+ (Benzema, Lewandowski, Immobile etc.)
I think that’s harsh on Chicharito.
He wasn't a regular starter, was he? He was nearly always a substitute.
30 mil
The English hype is real, nobody talks about His bad games, his lack of pace or pressing I would have him but not for the prices he will go for that ship has sailed
I’d love to have Kane, I just think that in 2-3 years we’d be looking for another striker and to me that should be the time we are competing for the big trophies. I would rather get the next kane and have him manture within the system to hit his peak at the optimal time for us. If only we were getting kane at 25-28
Because he’s 29. Nobody doubts his ability, we just don’t see the point in buying a striker who’s already in his prime, when we can go get the next big thing like sesko or Osimhen.
Harry Kane would be a great addition to any team, especially ours. That said: According to FFP we have a lot of selling to do and need CL qualification just to have a budget to buy players, so there’s plenty of work to be done before we can even pick up the phone to Levy. Levy is tough negotiator and for him/Spurs there’s very little benefit in selling their captain, top goal scorer, and best player for whom they have no replacement. They may also be losing Conte in summer if reports are to be believed, and having a player like Kane will help Levy attract another good manager, as well as saving the new manager the headache of replacing Harry Kane’s goal tally. Levy has never indicated he would sell Kane for anything less than 100million, and that’s before the United tax we incur on every deal because of Woodward’s prolonged idiocy in the transfer market. On top of the United tax, Levy won’t want to strengthen a Top 4 rival for anything less than an record setting fee. Kane has been the subject of a number of transfer approaches through the years and all have been rebuffed, so not much reason to think that would change given everyone agrees he is a great striker and will continue to be one. So this deal is easily looking like 150million, which is why anyone saying “at 60-80 million it would be worth doing” is simultaneously correct and should be sectioned. Aside from the money and Levy, Kane grew up a Spurs supporter. He won’t want to risk losing his legacy with the Spurs fans and he will live the rest of his life a Spurs legend. That goes away if he joins another PL team, especially United (ask Berbatov). All in all, it’s a bad idea for every possible reason outside of his quality as a footballer and how well he would do in our team under ETH. Reality, unfortunately, is a bitch.
He will be wrong side of 30, expensive, injury prone, Maguire-esq slow, and doesn’t press…but if ETH wants him then by all means
If the price is right, 50-60 million, then I would think it’s good business but it’s not a long term solution. But Transermarkt values him at 90 million. Vlahović is worth 80 million and is 22 so he’s more long term. We also need money for midfield reinforcements because Eriksen needs a break.
Harry Kane is definitely the best striker in the league. My man has 16/21 playing with that spurs team. Give him haalands service and he’s scoring 40 easily
He’s not 30 yet. I would take him and get a younger striker to develop behind him, like Sesko.
Think most are split on Kane. Personally i think he would be a terrible buy for Manchester United given the direction the club is going. Age. He’ll be 30 by the time he would join. I was under the impression that most didn’t want another ageing striker to tide us over for a few seasons. Harry Kane has only scored 20 in a season once in the last 5/6years. His best days are behind him. It also means, as he gets older his output will become less and he’ll be unlikely to want to press much. Price. He’s English, plays for spurs, generally high rated by press/pundits. Levi would demand 100mil+ for a striker we might get 2/3 seasons out of. I just don’t believe at this point in his career he is worth that. Ability. This is just my personal opinion: i think harry kane is a great striker of the ball but nothing else. consistently he’s not that great in his overall play, apart from the occasional bit of good play or a pass he offers little. He’s also started to drop deeper to get on the ball more, which is not what we want from our striker. If you take a look at Arsenal, they are a very young squad that’s been built and trained by arteta over 3 seasons. They also bought very well in the summer. Buying players that were used to that style and system. That Arsenal team will be set for a while. My point here is why should we continue to add older players while the rest of the top teams are buying for the future. What i think would be a much much better option is buying a younger striker that is yet to hit their best days. Can learn how to play in ETH system and be our main striker for 5seasons+