Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Spurs


SlugTrail
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, m0e said:

Yes, because no-one knows about Kane's qualities, and are aggressively monitoring him at the Euros to see what the fuss is all about.

 

There is no chance in hell his "best days are behind him"

I still wouldn't be happy if we splashed out a fortune for him. Whether or not he bounces back to top form there has to be a question mark about his injury record now . I still see Utd taking a punt and it could win them the title but just as easily be a very expensive error. I recall Taggart spent big on RVP when he was 30 to much surprise but he won them the league . OGS is not Taggart though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kane to Man City would be the best possible move for all three parties.

 

From Spurs point of view, he wants to leave, they will pay big money for him, and they have no chance of finishing above Man City any time soon. From Man City's point of view, they need to replace Aguero and Kane is more suited to a Guardiola team than Aguero was. For Kane it will finally allow him to win something, and City will rest him and rotate him and won't burn him out the way that Spurs do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magicrat said:

I still wouldn't be happy if we splashed out a fortune for him. Whether or not he bounces back to top form there has to be a question mark about his injury record now . I still see Utd taking a punt and it could win them the title but just as easily be a very expensive error. I recall Taggart spent big on RVP when he was 30 to much surprise but he won them the league . OGS is not Taggart though. 

What's he bouncing back from exactly? He got 22 league goals last season for an average Spurs team.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Paulie Dangerously said:

It's a stretch to say he's shite but his fitness has been declining. Paying £100m+ for him now would be a huge mistake

Aside from the fact that it's not been.

 

Screenshot_20210620-181923_Chrome.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kane is a hard one to judge IMO.

 

On the one hand, he's clearly a brilliant player and a top striker. Good finisher, decent passer, and really good at getting into goalscoring positions and having that knack for knowing which way the ball is going to bounce.

 

On the other hand, he's had some significant injury problems and especially ankle problems tend to mean a player's shelf life can be limited at the top end of the game.

 

For City, he makes all the sense in the world. They can pay 100m, he makes them significantly better and if he falls apart in 2-3 seasons that's no problem because he's probably led you to a couple of big trophies by then and you have unlimited funds to replace him with Haaland or Mbappe or whoever is the next big striker.

 

I was hoping United would be the ones to waste huge money on him. They're in a bit of a rebuilding mode and don't have a good manager at the moment, so they'd be far more likely to waste the 2-3 years of prime Kane you'd get from buying him and then be saddled with a huge albatross of a contract right as they are hoping to compete at the top again. Unfortunately, it looks like they're getting Sancho as their big-money buy this summer instead, who will be coming into his peak right about then, so that will make them that much harder to beat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should have also noted that selling him would be good for Spurs if they had an Edwards of their own to spend the 100m.

 

However, with Paratici showing that he's in bed with Mendes, it could be a disaster for them, like when they sold Bale and got a bunch of average players with the money. I could see them being out of the top 6 for a season or two, maybe opening the door for Leicester/West Ham.

 

Or even Everto ... who am I kidding?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

Should have also noted that selling him would be good for Spurs if they had an Edwards of their own to spend the 100m.

 

However, with Paratici showing that he's in bed with Mendes, it could be a disaster for them, like when they sold Bale and got a bunch of average players with the money. I could see them being out of the top 6 for a season or two, maybe opening the door for Leicester/West Ham.

 

Or even Everto ... who am I kidding?

Leicester finished ahead of them in the last two seasons didn’t they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, m0e said:

Aside from the fact that it's not been.

 

Screenshot_20210620-181923_Chrome.jpg

And those goals have added up to zero trophies. He has also got a few very decent,mostly non English,players supplying him at Tottenham whereas with England he does have English players alongside and thats the problem. He will be great for City but I'm not so sure he'll be great elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

Should have also noted that selling him would be good for Spurs if they had an Edwards of their own to spend the 100m.

 

However, with Paratici showing that he's in bed with Mendes, it could be a disaster for them, like when they sold Bale and got a bunch of average players with the money. I could see them being out of the top 6 for a season or two, maybe opening the door for Leicester/West Ham.

 

Or even Everto ... who am I kidding?

Well you could say that about Edwards. He was the mastermind behind our summer transfer dealings after Suarez left. Edwards only got on track when he had klopp holding his hand. The very same could be true of spurs depending who they hire as manager. 

14 hours ago, m0e said:

Aside from the fact that it's not been.

 

Screenshot_20210620-181923_Chrome.jpg

I thought last season was interesting with kane. He seemed to have a couple of incidents with his ankles and be back in no time - in fact I seem to remember one point where he left the pitch like he might never walk properly again and he was back maybe the next match or the one after. Mourinho mentioned with one time he went off something like "it's one thing to play with one injured ankle, but it's another to play with 2". It makes me wonder if he's maybe taking injections or just playing through substantial pain to play. There's no doubt at the euros he doesn't look fit, he can barely turn. 

 

His goals speak for themselves, but I think anyone who signs him is taking a bit of a gamble as I think it remains to be seen if he can continue. If I was betting, I would say he's more likely to head in the direction of Torres or schevcheko when they joined Chelsea than to continue the trajectory he's been on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a club with limitless funds buying Kane is a no-brainer as he will score at least 20 league goals a season for the next few years. But there's a good chance he'd be a bad investment for a club working on a budget. If we had a one-off £100m to splash out on a star signing I don't think Kane would be the best use of it. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, aws said:

For a club with limitless funds buying Kane is a no-brainer as he will score at least 20 league goals a season for the next few years. But there's a good chance he'd be a bad investment for a club working on a budget. If we had a one-off £100m to splash out on a star signing I don't think Kane would be the best use of it. 

Totally agree.

I'd forgotten about Chelsea and think they could be a good move for him as he could stay in London and still make shit loads of cash and win a cup or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, aws said:

For a club with limitless funds buying Kane is a no-brainer as he will score at least 20 league goals a season for the next few years. But there's a good chance he'd be a bad investment for a club working on a budget. If we had a one-off £100m to splash out on a star signing I don't think Kane would be the best use of it. 

He'll go to City for two or three seasons, score lots of goals but by the end of his stint there it'll be quite apparent he's no longer a world class striker.

 

Then he'll have a heroic return to Spurs to spearhead their fight for a Europa Conference League position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...