Jump to content

Football Thread 2021/2022


Plissken
 Share

Recommended Posts

You can have a go at Kane for signing a six year contract but Spurs offered it to him.  And likely did so in the knowledge that they could/would sell him for big money halfway through.  It's just happened earlier than Spurs want.  After all, if Kane was happy and had no intention of moving and City came in with the right bid you can bet Levy would be shifting him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reports saying he'll be back in training by the end of the week now, I guess he wasn't expecting quite that amount of public blowback. 

 

17 minutes ago, Loik V credern said:

I think £150m would be pretty ridiculous for Kane, £90m-£120m more reasonable. 

 

He may perhaps not be worth that much to Man City given their talent pool, but he's easily worth that to Spurs, and they're the ones who get to set the price. If City don't want to pay that then no problem, they can find someone else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am quite conflicted about it. As someone who has been raised to hope Spurs are denied even the smallest crumb of happiness it would obviously be great news if he left, but then the league would be a grim procession for everyone for a few years as City rip everyone apart by even bigger margins. You can see the dilemma. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, redbloodcel said:

Reports saying he'll be back in training by the end of the week now, I guess he wasn't expecting quite that amount of public blowback. 

 

He may perhaps not be worth that much to Man City given their talent pool, but he's easily worth that to Spurs, and they're the ones who get to set the price. If City don't want to pay that then no problem, they can find someone else. 

 

But saying 'well we Spurs value Kane at a price only two other players in history have been sold for more than' is not realistic when those players had 3-9 years on Kane and would be almost double what every other top player goes for, £65m-£90m. Saying 'no no no, we value Kane at this price' which isn't remotely in line with previous transfers might as well be saying 'we're not selling him at all'.

 

It's stupid with the whole owner being a billionaire thing. There are strikers out there, Leicester have taken a chance on Daka for £23m who scored 34 goals in 42 games for Red Bull Salzburg. It's not like Spurs challenge for the league or cups and are never at risk of relegation so while losing Kane's goals will affect the team obviously, not in any meaningful way. And Spurs still have the reputation as a top 5 club so can probably attract premier league strikers like Ings, Watkins, Iheanacho, Calvert Lewin, Wilson who all are scoring 15+ premier league goals now with full seasons. And while Kane provides for Son, Son usually does better when Kane is injured and is still one of the world's best. It's a stubborn pride thing at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stoppy2000 said:

Those players you have listed are all absolutely miles below the level of Kane. 

 

We're getting into the idea of "Big Clubs need Big Names" right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Plissken said:

 

We're getting into the idea of "Big Clubs need Big Names" right now. 

What does this mean? Are you disputing the fact that Kane is clearly miles better than the likes of Iheanacho?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an unanswerable question, but having watched Danny Ings for a number of years I think that if he hadn't suffered several bad knee injuries, he would be the current first choice centre forward for both Liverpool and England.

 

I'm not saying Kane is not a top level player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Plissken said:

With Van Dijk, it was clear to everyone that Liverpool were the ones in the wrong.

 

Yep, we fucked it with the way we went about our business for him that summer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, redbloodcel said:

Spurs have done both of these things in recent years, in no small part because of Kane's contributions. 

 

Yeah there was a cup final last year wasn't there. I guess getting to the odd final and not doing anything in them does count as challenging for them. I don't mean that in an arsey way, there wasn't much Spurs could have done against how dominant City were. I think Spurs should keep an unhappy Kane who desperately wants to leave because despite him knowing he's among the best in the world in his position he ought to waste the last 6 years of his career competing at the highest level accepting never enjoying what it feels like to taste cup success.

 

It's like i don't think of Arsenal challenging for the league and cups even if they then inexplicably win a few and end up in finals. It's how transitional both clubs are at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shimmyhill said:

Likely biased but there is plenty of talk that Kane is on extended leave and not even due back….

 

I'd heard he was supposed to pop in today for a COVID test but not train.

 

But who even the fuck knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Stoppy2000 said:

Those players you have listed are all absolutely miles below the level of Kane. 

 

Yeah I know. Unless you get Haaland or Lewandowski you're not getting someone comparable. But so what? People do this thing where they go 'that club can't replace that player, they can't!! who is gonna score that many goals?!!' as though goals don't come through team play anyway and can't be shared around. Just because you have a striker who scores 25 a season doesn't mean by not having that, success is impossible. Liverpool had Salah and Suarez produce record breaking seasons and they still didn't win the league. Then when there was no outright star and the goals were shared as moderate numbers each, with fullbacks and midfielders chipping, they did. Cos the defence improved like...but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Plissken said:

It's an unanswerable question, but having watched Danny Ings for a number of years I think that if he hadn't suffered several bad knee injuries, he would be the current first choice centre forward for both Liverpool and England.

 

I'm not saying Kane is not a top level player.

But he did suffer those injuries so the question has been answered... Ings is not as good as Kane. You can't buy the non-injured version of Ings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Loik V credern said:

 

Yeah there was a cup final last year wasn't there. I guess getting to the odd final and not doing anything in them does count as challenging for them. I don't mean that in an arsey way, there wasn't much Spurs could have done against how dominant City were. I think Spurs should keep an unhappy Kane who desperately wants to leave because despite him knowing he's among the best in the world in his position he ought to waste the last 6 years of his career competing at the highest level accepting never enjoying what it feels like to taste cup success.

 

It's like i don't think of Arsenal challenging for the league and cups even if they then inexplicably win a few and end up in finals. It's how transitional both clubs are at the moment.

The cup final, the champions league final, the 2nd place league finish. Honestly for someone trying to not sound arsey you aren't doing a great job...

I'm not bothered about Kane leaving really. He's always been a great player for spurs and probably deserves a move. I just don't want him to go on the cheap and don't understand him being retconned into being a Danny Ings level player with a Daniel Sturridge level of fragility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Dudley said:

 

I'd heard he was supposed to pop in today for a COVID test but not train.

 

But who even the fuck knows.

 

Spurs talk is that he has to isolate after his holiday so will be back as was always planned when this is over…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Loik V credern said:

It's like i don't think of Arsenal challenging for the league and cups even if they then inexplicably win a few and end up in finals. It's how transitional both clubs are at the moment.

 

Football isn't based on perception fortunately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Loik V credern said:

 

Yeah there was a cup final last year wasn't there. I guess getting to the odd final and not doing anything in them does count as challenging for them. I don't mean that in an arsey way, there wasn't much Spurs could have done against how dominant City were. I think Spurs should keep an unhappy Kane who desperately wants to leave because despite him knowing he's among the best in the world in his position he ought to waste the last 6 years of his career competing at the highest level accepting never enjoying what it feels like to taste cup success.

 

It's like i don't think of Arsenal challenging for the league and cups even if they then inexplicably win a few and end up in finals. It's how transitional both clubs are at the moment.

 

With Kane Spurs have outperformed their funding - champs league final, league cup final, runners up in the league - regular 3rd and 4th places all with the funding for 6th place and the average spend of a relegation team ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Shimmyhill said:

 

Spurs talk is that he has to isolate after his holiday so will be back as was always planned when this is over…

 

The Athletic seem to be very reliable and they're insisting he's skiving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stoppy2000 said:

The cup final, the champions league final, the 2nd place league finish. Honestly for someone trying to not sound arsey you aren't doing a great job...

 

I might have managed to piss off spurs fans and arsenal fans in the space of a few posts. I just mean now, where the team is now. That 2nd finish was 4 years ago and a different team under a different manager who had spent 2 seasons building up to that point, so this season with a new manager everything kind of starts again.

 

3 minutes ago, Stoppy2000 said:

I'm not bothered about Kane leaving really. He's always been a great player for spurs and probably deserves a move. I just don't want him to go on the cheap and don't understand him being retconned into being a Danny Ings level player with a Daniel Sturridge level of fragility.

 

What would be considered 'cheap'? £100m? £120m? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man City should point out how Spurs spent the Bale money and say their below market value offer is really in Spurs best interests to save them future disappointment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume it would be very easy for either Kane's team or the Spurs team to come out and say 'no he's not gone AWOL, he's not due back yet' if that was the case, given its dragging everyone involved through the mud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Loik V credern said:

 

I might have managed to piss off spurs fans and arsenal fans in the space of a few posts. I just mean now, where the team is now. That 2nd finish was 4 years ago and a different team under a different manager who had spent 2 seasons building up to that point, so this season with a new manager everything kind of starts again.

 

 

What would be considered 'cheap'? £100m? £120m? 

You mentioned £65-90m earlier. I personally think that he's got to be worth £100m+. £120m sounds fair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stoppy2000 said:

You mentioned £65-90m earlier. I personally think that he's got to be worth £100m+. £120m sounds fair. 

 

That's why i mentioned £65-90m though, that's what other top players go for yet people are saying Levy isn't happy with £100m and expects £150m. Presumably City offered £100m first, or second. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Loik V credern said:

 

That's why i mentioned £65-90m though, that's what other top players go for yet people are saying Levy isn't happy with £100m and expects £150m. Presumably City offered £100m first, or second. 

Who is the last top player with 3 years left on their contract to be sold? And I'm not talking about Iheanacho or Ings...

Also the difference between £65m and £90m is quite the range. £50m only buys you a good defender these days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Stoppy2000 said:

Who is the last top player with 3 years left on their contract to be sold? And I'm not talking about Iheanacho or Ings...

 

I don’t know, can't easily find that info.

 

8 minutes ago, Stoppy2000 said:

Also the difference between £65m and £90m is quite the range. £50m only buys you a good defender these days. 

 

Okay £75m-£90m.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.