I rate Grealish and Lukaku but neither are as good as Kane imo. City paid £100mill for Grealish (release clause or it would have been more) so they obviously must expect to pay a lot more than that for a superior player who has no release clause Let’s say they do splash out on someone else instead? Who will that be? Lewandowski or Haaland?
This is a very old argument (to me), a player is only worth what a buying club think he is worth by what he can bring to their team, if the selling club thinks he is more valuable to them with what he gives them then they won't sell. All about what each team thinks the player adds to them, 10 teams may have 10 very different views.
F Kane too! The weasel! Let him whine whist the men of integrity actually focus on winning games for the club they signed contracts for. My hunch tells me they, and Nuno and co, may do better than many people think, and maybe Kane will join in again when he stops crying in the corner, and sees the real value of the opportunity he has to make real history with Tottenham in this very moment. I'm growing tired of this narrative, of people not liking the unfairness and buying of leagues, yet claiming that nothing can be done about it because, "that's where the game is going". No, that's where the game is being driven by everybody's complicity in the nonsense!
You don’t think City highly highly rate Kane then? I think it’s quite clear how much they want him and will eventually pay what Spurs want, this is all bravado on their part as they don’t want to be seen as a soft touch for future transfers.
I never thought I'd say this but Roy Keane is absolutely spot on in this re Kane and Spurs. Gary Neville is a weasel. Special mention for the Man United fan, Adam Mckola I think, who calls out Gary Neville and the media approach / bias re Kane specifically. SPOT ON!
Just found this. This guy nails it in the first half of this. What is missing though is that the bias has very much to do with a disregard for Spurs as a club. They don't care so much how badly players treat Spurs because, it's Spurs.
The idea that Rooney and Kane are treated differently because one is from the North and the other's from the South is ludicrous, frankly.
I really can't get steamed up over Kane's impending departure or the manner of it. It's the same old story every time....the player's obviously going....the fans are upset with the player/the club/United or City or Madrid...we can never agree a fee...the player fails to turn up for training/play from the bench...the fans are now solely upset with him and the buying club....then "Wonder of wonders...a deal is struck"...we get a load of money, which we mostly waste....and we go merrily on our way until it happens again. They always leave and we always get over it. Now, please....let's try not to waste too much money this time, eh?
As much as I don't usually have any good things to say about Wet Spam, but they have a problem with Rice that have some parallels with our Kane situation. Similarly with Villa - previously of course - with Grealish. Basically any team outside the media darlings that get a star player they obviously don't deserve, because such players should be 'winning things' which of course can't happen at their parent clubs. Well of course not if the top teams keep sucking up the talent, it's self perpetuating! Many will say that this has always been the way, and that this is exactly what we do to clubs with lesser spending power. Well there is some truth in that, but the danger is assuming things are as they always were, so not worrying about it. And not noticing when things are changing. And I think they are actually changing and are different with the actions of Citeh and Chelski more recently. One of the main differences is that whilst we would normally take a player with the intention of improving our first team (even Ndombele!), these mock-clubs are taking other teams best players to not even be immediately first choice for their team. They do this to improve their squad of course, but it also has the effect that these players don't get to play for anyone else - indeed on any particular game day they might not be playing at all (thus in a general sense reducing the quality of the overall PL product when this talent is no longer on show every week). So when pundits imply how 'clever' Citeh are to have a second team that might get into the top four of the PL (well it's easier to be clever if you don't have any financial constraint isn't it), what they should be saying is how wrong and dangerous this is. What I see into the future is a concentration of talent in the richest clubs to a degree that hasn't happened before, and other teams simply not having star players any more as they will simply be sucked up be the richest. Who become richer based on the consequent success. Also to a certain extent this talent might be lost after the mock-teams have finished with them because other teams simply can't afford to pay them. But what happens in the long term? Won't people get a bit bored to see the same winners all the time? The PL is often touted as the best league because the top clubs generally get challenging matches from pretty much all the others (unlike in France for example). But how long before this is no longer the case? And with all these players to choose from, the best players will always be available for the hardest matches because they will not be required for all of the others. There are many other consequences of what is happening now, and we should recognise that the problem is getting worse and it's not the same as it has always been.
City and Chelsea have taken it a couple of steps further than that, even. They sign players to loan them out and hoover up all available youth talent while they're at it, too. City and Red Bull now have multiple clubs to ship them out to across the world and another bunch of associate clubs when those are full. The Champions League finalists had about 80 players out on loan last season between them.
Unusually Vim I am going to disagree to some extent. I think it has always been the case that the richest teams snatch the best players. When were Spurs were the number 1 team in the 60's we did just that. Taking Greaves from Chelsea Mackay for example and building the double winning team by raiding other clubs. Not just Spurs of course the other 'big' clubs did the same. The money came often from wealthy backers but mostly it came from the size of the fan base. You can't really get away from it in Pro football. The difference now is the size of it all money wise and the fact that the whole world is involved. The PL itself is taking it away from Serie A for example so it's an international problem now. It's capitalism, the outcome is always the bigger company swallowing the smaller until you end up with a virtual monopoly. You need controls and limits and so far football has tried but failed to deliver proper spending controls. The recent ESL attempt is the latest example of the richest clubs wanting all of the cake. The outcome you suggest I agree is the logical end result unless the bodies that are supposed to control the game bite the bullet and take proper control.
WE did but we were on the verge of signing him from Chelsea then they sold him to AC Milan to prevent that. He was never happy there so we got him in the end when he was very happy to return to England. The chances are he would have stayed at Chelsea if we hadn't gone after him.
