or to join or start a new Discussion

38 Comments
Article Rating 2.33 Stars

Harry Kane

Right - before I start I know I'm going to get roasted (hopefully not spit!!).

BUT just watching the game yesterday (I know it was only Huddersfield) and how well we played and also looking at the stats with and without Harry, coupled with the fact Harry's had 3 significant ankle injuries in the last 18months or so - if you were Levy and a silly offer of £250M+ came in would you sell him?

For me - yes, I think I would as long as it's not to a PL team.

COYS
Thoughts? Or should I just get my coat and leave.

posted on 14/4/19

comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 7 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Phenom (U20037)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 1 minute ago
Normally at £250m you take it all day long. I just don't trust our scouting system and to make great use of that money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Didn`t like the scouting system find Eriksen, Dele, Toby and Verts for silly small amounts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

It took us £100m in 13/14 season to end up with Eriksen as the only worthwhile signing. The rest either injured or garbage.

Not suggesting our scouting is horrible but signings like Dele for instance are a total punt at a low price. When it comes to big signings we've typically not done very well and at £250m you'd need big money signings.

That's an obsene amount of money to refuse for a player. No club would turn it down in my opinion. Doesn't matter if it's Kane, Neymar, Ronaldo or a reincarnated Zidane.

posted on 14/4/19

comment by Analog (U17200)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
Btw the 'spurs play better without Kane' thing is a massive bandwagon. Mostly peddled by non-Spurs supporters who don't even watch us

The sample size of Spurs games without Kane is far too small for one. And they've often come against 'easier' opposition

Kane is - somehow, and I'm not quite sure how - still actually underrated as a player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This

Its the kind of take that's easy to get behind because it's the polar opposite from the "one man team" stuff that spurs have been mocked for but it's ultimately pretty hard to make a genuine case for us being better without Kane

comment by sandy (U20567)

posted on 15/4/19

How any team can be better without their best player is a mystery to me. Anybody care to explain?

posted on 15/4/19

Simply put...... NO. You don't sell a player like that unless you have no choice (& Kane appears happy). Kane needs protecting from himself. He plays too much football and even if he's not picking up serious injuries, his body takes a battering given everything (which is more than just goals) that he offers the team. Poch is always keen to rotate other positions, he has to show greater faith in the likes of Moura & Sonny even when Kane is fit or suck it up and pay up for a second striker and make Kane understand he has competition for his place just like he would at every big club in the world. The only players who play when they want are Messi & Ronaldo (& to a lesser extent Hazard) and Kane is not on that level yet

posted on 15/4/19

comment by Kane and Able(previously Once Bale leaves..) (U12707)
posted 17 hours ago
For £250 mill that could get you 4-5 top players that could transform the team .
We have to put our sentiments to bed about Kane and think if the money was well spent we could finally challenge the big spenders who are currently running away with the league. £250 mill is a lot of money and not to be sniffed at.

----------------------------------------------------------------------




Ridiculous mate. For that 250 mil, how would we even get anyone close to Kane’s quality ? Realistically we ain’t getting Ronaldo or Messi, so in my opinion there is nobody else in the world better than Harry Kane as an out and out centre forward. How about we keep Kane and buy around him. Something we should of done years ago. That’s the better option mate. Selling Kane isn’t an option.

posted on 15/4/19

Its not like Spurs spent the Bale money well

posted on 15/4/19

This. Eriksen probably being the only real success with the Bale money. Lamela hit and miss. Apart from that, al our signings were a load of s**

posted on 15/4/19

comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 8 minutes ago
This. Eriksen probably being the only real success with the Bale money. Lamela hit and miss. Apart from that, al our signings were a load of s**
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep..... I think Eriksen was the cheapest of the bunch.. not like we needed to sell Bale to buy Eriksen. Sometimes having the money to spend is a curse.... Just look at Man United over the past 5 years

posted on 15/4/19

£250m well spent is an incredible amount of money. Now that market has obviously changed but City for £250m bought the following players:

B. Silva
Laporte
Sane
De Bruyne
Jesus
Gundogan

Would you trade Kane for those players? Would be stupid not to. Obviously real life isn't a game but just shows how much £250m is.

posted on 16/4/19

Why would any team sell Harry Kane if they had him?

The silly stats of the games we won without him dont show the full story. Lets change the stats shall we, how many NLD would we have won without Kanes goals?

Would we have drawn at Barca, lets remember Kane set up the equaliser.

Its a stupid discussion backed up by even more stupid stats and bought to debate by even more stupid people

Sign in if you want to comment
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Rate Breakdown
5
1 Vote
4
0 Votes
3
0 Votes
2
0 Votes
1
2 Votes

Average Rating: 2.33 from 3 votes

ARTICLE STATS
Day
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available
Month
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available