Harry Kane - Striker Says He's Staying at Spurs

[Danny]

8 minutes ago, Devil said:

If Kane goes City you have to say they would destroy the league. The goals he would score from the service he'd be getting would be incredible. 

I noticed someone saying they'd be hollow trophies earlier in the thread, I get fans look at City's success and think it's hollow due to the owners money but the medals are the same no matter what for the players. They'd win the Champions league with Kane, I have no doubt about that. 

It won't be hollow, not for the players. Nobody every said United's title wins were hollow when United were blowing every other club out of the park financially (in fairness they did say it, but no one actually believes it). Nobody looks back at Joe Cole, Lampard, John Terry etc at Chelsea and say what they achieved as players is hollow.

From a fan standpoint I get it, it's difficult to look at a Chelsea fan celebrate a league title and think that the degree of hard work in attaining that was there, but as players, you go wherever the best players and best managers are and at this point it's Man City, at other times it's Man Utd, Barce, Real, Bayern, Juve. If Spurs were buying out another club's icons Storts wouldn't be calling football hollow, he'd probably be really happy to see a player that good come in, it's just shit when it happens to you.

What we are seeing has been happening long before City and Chelsea even came into their success, they've certainly highlighted the issue and put it on steroids almost but the fact is money has determined who wins the league for most of my life, be it Man Utd, Chelsea, Blackburn, Man City...the only clubs I can think of that went a slightly different route were Arsenal and Leicester and their success as a title winning team didn't last long.

The Premier League and Sky very specifically created this mess and the only way to get round it imo is almost an American style salary/transfer fee cap, but it would just be incredibly hard to incorporate in a sport that is not based on franchises.

[Storts]

lol, when you realise you’re being badly advised 

[Smiley Culture]

Seen a load of “well, why did he sign a 5 year contract a year ago if he had an agreement to leave” and it staggers me that people are that thick. 

[Devil]

18 minutes ago, Danny said:

It won't be hollow, not for the players. Nobody every said United's title wins were hollow when United were blowing every other club out of the park financially (in fairness they did say it, but no one actually believes it). Nobody looks back at Joe Cole, Lampard, John Terry etc at Chelsea and say what they achieved as players is hollow.

From a fan standpoint I get it, it's difficult to look at a Chelsea fan celebrate a league title and think that the degree of hard work in attaining that was there, but as players, you go wherever the best players and best managers are and at this point it's Man City, at other times it's Man Utd, Barce, Real, Bayern, Juve. If Spurs were buying out another club's icons Storts wouldn't be calling football hollow, he'd probably be really happy to see a player that good come in, it's just shit when it happens to you.

What we are seeing has been happening long before City and Chelsea even came into their success, they've certainly highlighted the issue and put it on steroids almost but the fact is money has determined who wins the league for most of my life, be it Man Utd, Chelsea, Blackburn, Man City...the only clubs I can think of that went a slightly different route were Arsenal and Leicester and their success as a title winning team didn't last long.

The Premier League and Sky very specifically created this mess and the only way to get round it imo is almost an American style salary/transfer fee cap, but it would just be incredibly hard to incorporate in a sport that is not based on franchises.

I don't think it's very fair to put us into the bracket of City, Chelsea and in my opinion PSG. 

Whilst we've always been around the top spenders we've actually generated the money ourselves through success and a clever business strategy during the 90's and 2000's. 

It's been proven many times our wealth didn't always bring us success as we went through plenty of periods of transition during that time. 

The oil clubs have changed the landscape incredibly though, it's now impossible to see how anyone can long term compete with a club that has the financial clout to have the very best of everything whilst being able to fund transfer after transfer each season without the worry of the long term effect it had on their bank balance. 

There isn't no selling to generate cash for transfers, they can afford to let players go for peanuts that haven't worked out and now they are also starting a new strategy, cherry picking the best of the best from the league. They've made a mockery of the FFP so now they have free range to do as they please. 

[Devil-Dick Willie]

1 hour ago, Storts said:

Of course - that’s all true. But that’s not my point. He doesn’t become a ‘hero’ - he’s just another player oil money city have bought in because they can afford to. It won’t add much to his legacy. He won’t be remembered for that, just like Laporte, Silva whoever, good players but that’s just it. Just part of a club that is the next one to continue destroying football as we know it, where clubs cannot even keep their club icons. I can’t particularly articulate right now, it makes you want to give up on football tbh.

You gotta win for a cause to be a hero, and ya'll aint winning shite. Die for the cause and you're a martyr, which is the road you're on. 
He can win things and add the only missing piece to his club career, or he can retire with a bunch of what ifs and the appreciation of a bunch of fans he's already made fond memories with. Can't even be a one club player like Totti, and at least Totti won things for club and country occasionally. 

[Danny]

2 hours ago, Devil said:

I don't think it's very fair to put us into the bracket of City, Chelsea and in my opinion PSG. 

Whilst we've always been around the top spenders we've actually generated the money ourselves through success and a clever business strategy during the 90's and 2000's. 

It's been proven many times our wealth didn't always bring us success as we went through plenty of periods of transition during that time. 

The oil clubs have changed the landscape incredibly though, it's now impossible to see how anyone can long term compete with a club that has the financial clout to have the very best of everything whilst being able to fund transfer after transfer each season without the worry of the long term effect it had on their bank balance. 

There isn't no selling to generate cash for transfers, they can afford to let players go for peanuts that haven't worked out and now they are also starting a new strategy, cherry picking the best of the best from the league. They've made a mockery of the FFP so now they have free range to do as they please. 

I think it's very fair tbh, you have been consistently one of the biggest spenders in the league for nearly 3 decades now and for 2 of those decades you were consistently the best team in England. You were the first club to do what City and Chelsea have done, morally there is little difference between making your money from an entire continent and making your money from one family on a continent, both are happening absolutely nowhere near Manchester. With Man City and Chelsea we are just seeing the capitalist progression of what you have succeeded at doing for so long throughout the Premier League era.

It goes back to the creation of the Premier League, which encouraged the creation of monopolies, prize and tv money strengthening the clubs that get their first and creating a divide between them and those who didn't, stifling future competition. We can all be upset with Man City's ability to buy whoever they want (though United are really not impacted by this at all) but unless you can look at the actual cause of the issue and how it's been exploited since day 1 there's really no point in complaining about oil clubs. European football needs to be stripped back entirely.

[Devil]

43 minutes ago, Danny said:

I think it's very fair tbh, you have been consistently one of the biggest spenders in the league for nearly 3 decades now and for 2 of those decades you were consistently the best team in England. You were the first club to do what City and Chelsea have done, morally there is little difference between making your money from an entire continent and making your money from one family on a continent, both are happening absolutely nowhere near Manchester. With Man City and Chelsea we are just seeing the capitalist progression of what you have succeeded at doing for so long throughout the Premier League era.

It goes back to the creation of the Premier League, which encouraged the creation of monopolies, prize and tv money strengthening the clubs that get their first and creating a divide between them and those who didn't, stifling future competition. We can all be upset with Man City's ability to buy whoever they want (though United are really not impacted by this at all) but unless you can look at the actual cause of the issue and how it's been exploited since day 1 there's really no point in complaining about oil clubs. European football needs to be stripped back entirely.

It's clear to me you have a chip on your should regarding Manchester United, I don't hold it against you because it's nothing I haven't encountered on football forums before and I've grown to accept it. 

It's clearly not the same though, Manchester United weren't created in the 1990's we've globally been respect as one of the biggest sides in England since the Busby era. Again I will point we managed to take advantage of a very profitable period in football when the money went boom and we cashed in more than others, I've never denied that but the fact is we were always a club of interest and we were also being managed by the best football manager in the history of the game. 

Let's not forget the spine of our side was provided by the youth set up for the best part of two decades as well. Yes we added players to that team but to keep yourself at the top you have to pay the going rate, that never once went over what the club could afford and there were many summers where Sir Alex didn't buy or used the old "no value in the market" excuse. 

City on the other hand were bought by an oil rich Sheik who more than likely got bored playing football manager and thought I could buy a lower league Premier league side and win everything. No financial consequences, no worries, no budget in the youth department, the training complex, the stadium expansion, the playing squad... The coaching staff, the manager, the board. 

They can just buy exactly what they want when they want without it ever making a difference to the mans lifestyle or wealth.

How on earth is that fair for any sport. I'm not looking at this selfishly as a United fan, I'm love football full stop and I don't think it's good for competition at all. I don't admire anything Peps doing in the same way I did Sir Alex, Wenger, Clough and even now Klopp. 

How difficult really is it for a top coach to win trophies when he can switch his playing squad around with such ease. 

 

[Reluctant Striker]

23 minutes ago, Devil said:

It's clear to me you have a chip on your should regarding Manchester United, I don't hold it against you because it's nothing I haven't encountered on football forums before and I've grown to accept it. 

It's clearly not the same though, Manchester United weren't created in the 1990's we've globally been respect as one of the biggest sides in England since the Busby era. Again I will point we managed to take advantage of a very profitable period in football when the money went boom and we cashed in more than others, I've never denied that but the fact is we were always a club of interest and we were also being managed by the best football manager in the history of the game. 

Let's not forget the spine of our side was provided by the youth set up for the best part of two decades as well. Yes we added players to that team but to keep yourself at the top you have to pay the going rate, that never once went over what the club could afford and there were many summers where Sir Alex didn't buy or used the old "no value in the market" excuse. 

City on the other hand were bought by an oil rich Sheik who more than likely got bored playing football manager and thought I could buy a lower league Premier league side and win everything. No financial consequences, no worries, no budget in the youth department, the training complex, the stadium expansion, the playing squad... The coaching staff, the manager, the board. 

They can just buy exactly what they want when they want without it ever making a difference to the mans lifestyle or wealth.

How on earth is that fair for any sport. I'm not looking at this selfishly as a United fan, I'm love football full stop and I don't think it's good for competition at all. I don't admire anything Peps doing in the same way I did Sir Alex, Wenger, Clough and even now Klopp. 

How difficult really is it for a top coach to win trophies when he can switch his playing squad around with such ease. 

 

Yes, it's never nice to see any side buying success.

The Financial Fair Play thing sounds inadequate.

It can't go full on American sports, for many reasons it just doesn't fit the football pyramid.

And people just don't like restrictions on overseas players.

It seems we just go in cycles until a side goes like Leeds, Villa or Newcastle, after getting quite high. Or someone suddenly gets mega investment as one of limited options for a bored squillionaire to chose from.

[Danny]

25 minutes ago, Devil said:

It's clear to me you have a chip on your should regarding Manchester United, I don't hold it against you because it's nothing I haven't encountered on football forums before and I've grown to accept it. 

It's clearly not the same though, Manchester United weren't created in the 1990's we've globally been respect as one of the biggest sides in England since the Busby era. Again I will point we managed to take advantage of a very profitable period in football when the money went boom and we cashed in more than others, I've never denied that but the fact is we were always a club of interest and we were also being managed by the best football manager in the history of the game. 

Let's not forget the spine of our side was provided by the youth set up for the best part of two decades as well. Yes we added players to that team but to keep yourself at the top you have to pay the going rate, that never once went over what the club could afford and there were many summers where Sir Alex didn't buy or used the old "no value in the market" excuse. 

City on the other hand were bought by an oil rich Sheik who more than likely got bored playing football manager and thought I could buy a lower league Premier league side and win everything. No financial consequences, no worries, no budget in the youth department, the training complex, the stadium expansion, the playing squad... The coaching staff, the manager, the board. 

They can just buy exactly what they want when they want without it ever making a difference to the mans lifestyle or wealth.

How on earth is that fair for any sport. I'm not looking at this selfishly as a United fan, I'm love football full stop and I don't think it's good for competition at all. I don't admire anything Peps doing in the same way I did Sir Alex, Wenger, Clough and even now Klopp. 

How difficult really is it for a top coach to win trophies when he can switch his playing squad around with such ease. 

 

I have a chip on my shoulder? Mate I genuinely do not care for or against United  I just find it baffling that people can be so in favour of how capitalism has warped European football when it helps their club out but are then against it when other clubs get one over on them. Either you like the system or you don't. I mean your own club has spent about £100m or so less than City have in the time period that Pep has been at the club, not including this Summer's transfers, and you don't have a word to say about yourselves being able to spend that much. And a £100m sounds like a lot to most clubs, but when the difference is about 800m vs 700m in a 5 or so year timespan it really isn't.

Either you're for the system that has created a monopoly on English football or you're not, but trying to deny that your own club haven't massively benefitted from it is just false information and trying to blame City and Chelsea only when your own club has purposely benefitted from the same system that encourages them to flourish is just hypocritical.

[Reluctant Striker]

16 minutes ago, Danny said:

I have a chip on my shoulder? Mate I genuinely do not care for or against United  I just find it baffling that people can be so in favour of how capitalism has warped European football when it helps their club out but are then against it when other clubs get one over on them. Either you like the system or you don't. I mean your own club has spent about £100m or so less than City have in the time period that Pep has been at the club, not including this Summer's transfers, and you don't have a word to say about yourselves being able to spend that much. And a £100m sounds like a lot to most clubs, but when the difference is about 800m vs 700m in a 5 or so year timespan it really isn't.

Either you're for the system that has created a monopoly on English football or you're not, but trying to deny that your own club haven't massively benefitted from it is just false information and trying to blame City and Chelsea only when your own club has purposely benefitted from the same system that encourages them to flourish is just hypocritical.

It's new money vs old money.

City & Chelsea have had input not consistent with their level of historic success.

In my experience many United & Liverpool fans will often talk of them being the bigger established brands. Yes, they do have a large global fan base. Fans in all corners of England. But I think that is rather to do with winning in recent decades. It's that established brand which is being challenged. How many youngsters are latching onto City or Chelsea now that may previously have been United or Liverpool.

From my own club, Villa, I feel I see the argument from both sides. It is difficult to celebrate poaching Buendia from Norwich. And then overly begrudge if City do the same with Grealish.

[Danny]

9 minutes ago, Reluctant Striker said:

It's new money vs old money.

City & Chelsea have had input not consistent with their level of historic success.

In my experience many United & Liverpool fans will often talk of them being the bigger established brands. Yes, they do have a large global fan base. Fans in all corners of England. But I think that is rather to do with winning in recent decades. It's that established brand which is being challenged. How many youngsters are latching onto City or Chelsea now that may previously have been United or Liverpool.

From my own club, Villa, I feel I see the argument from both sides. It is difficult to celebrate poaching Buendia from Norwich. And then overly begrudge if City do the same with Grealish.

It's not even about United, City or Chelsea specifically. It's the whole set up, how clubs are incentivised. Winning prize money and larger tv money is the core to what allowed United to spend so much at various points under Fergie. It's also, alongside their merchandising in Asia, what's allowed them to have 5 of the ten biggest transfer records in English football. What has allowed them to do that has encouraged City and Chelsea to come in because the owners can throw money at it knowing that the club itself will start to sustain, to a degree before needing more money, that level of finance because now they're making top 4 money, Champions League money. City's owners are able to legitimise themselves in the western world by having a Premier League winning team, and then beyond that legitimise themselves globally.

But it all comes back down to how the Premier League creates and encourages monopolies. How United done it is one way, and how City and Chelsea are doing it is another. But it all comes from the same place. To change you need to change the entire system, how players are paid, how much clubs can pay, how lesser teams are given an advantage to have a crack at finances/big players over the highest performing teams. The problem is that the American model works perfectly, because it's centralised. There's too much history within football to centralise the sport, you would have to radically overhaul the academy set up, the leagues we have, it would need to almost be a global agreement as eventually if it was just UEFA putting the breaks on other confederations would take advantage, like the MLS for example.

[Reluctant Striker]

2 hours ago, Danny said:

It's not even about United, City or Chelsea specifically. It's the whole set up, how clubs are incentivised. Winning prize money and larger tv money is the core to what allowed United to spend so much at various points under Fergie. It's also, alongside their merchandising in Asia, what's allowed them to have 5 of the ten biggest transfer records in English football. What has allowed them to do that has encouraged City and Chelsea to come in because the owners can throw money at it knowing that the club itself will start to sustain, to a degree before needing more money, that level of finance because now they're making top 4 money, Champions League money. City's owners are able to legitimise themselves in the western world by having a Premier League winning team, and then beyond that legitimise themselves globally.

But it all comes back down to how the Premier League creates and encourages monopolies. How United done it is one way, and how City and Chelsea are doing it is another. But it all comes from the same place. To change you need to change the entire system, how players are paid, how much clubs can pay, how lesser teams are given an advantage to have a crack at finances/big players over the highest performing teams. The problem is that the American model works perfectly, because it's centralised. There's too much history within football to centralise the sport, you would have to radically overhaul the academy set up, the leagues we have, it would need to almost be a global agreement as eventually if it was just UEFA putting the breaks on other confederations would take advantage, like the MLS for example.

Yes, it's not about particular clubs for me. Or even particular methods of how they're doing it. To me they are all playing the game within the format that's been laid out. Big TV revenue. No restrictions on overseas players. It's all combined to create a buy to win culture. With supply & demand issues.

I don't think it could even be fixed in just England. I think it would take something quite radical Europe-wide to change the model of what clubs can & can not do to move up the ladder. What's creating healthy competition. What's harmful to the same thing. I know that's what the FFP thing is supposed to be about, but I'm sure there are loop holes & light consequences. e.g. Villa's owners own the stadium. I think that may still be adjudicated on. And when shuffling money around in that way goes wrong you get Coventry City playing at Birmingham City's St Andrews. I think they are back at their own stadium for this season.

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 hours ago, Danny said:

It's not even about United, City or Chelsea specifically. It's the whole set up, how clubs are incentivised. Winning prize money and larger tv money is the core to what allowed United to spend so much at various points under Fergie. It's also, alongside their merchandising in Asia, what's allowed them to have 5 of the ten biggest transfer records in English football. What has allowed them to do that has encouraged City and Chelsea to come in because the owners can throw money at it knowing that the club itself will start to sustain, to a degree before needing more money, that level of finance because now they're making top 4 money, Champions League money. City's owners are able to legitimise themselves in the western world by having a Premier League winning team, and then beyond that legitimise themselves globally.

But it all comes back down to how the Premier League creates and encourages monopolies. How United done it is one way, and how City and Chelsea are doing it is another. But it all comes from the same place. To change you need to change the entire system, how players are paid, how much clubs can pay, how lesser teams are given an advantage to have a crack at finances/big players over the highest performing teams. The problem is that the American model works perfectly, because it's centralised. There's too much history within football to centralise the sport, you would have to radically overhaul the academy set up, the leagues we have, it would need to almost be a global agreement as eventually if it was just UEFA putting the breaks on other confederations would take advantage, like the MLS for example.

Tbh, "monopolies in football" existed before Serie A, the prem, and La Liga learned they could make shitloads of money "exporting" their football to foreign fans - where TV deals made Italy have the strongest league in the 90s, Spain in the early 2000s, and for a while our league has been flush with cash (although Spain's still been pretty dominant in Europe - but also the way La Liga's structured those deals... it really favours Real Madrid, Barcelona, and to a lesser extent but still disproportionately Atletico Madrid above all the other clubs).

But going through the history books, lots of clubs have sort of had a "hegemony" on success domestically before the sport became so commodified. I don't think "buying the league" is anything new - it's just the money is so obscene now, buying the league for a few years can establish being big for a very long time.

The American model would never work here, unless we could get all of Europe's top leagues to agree to salary caps... and unless we ended relegation for our top flight (because the pros of the American system are "there's greater parity" - the cons are "unambitious teams/owners don't have serious repercussions and still make shitloads"... even in American sports, where there is greater parity... there do seem to be sides that generally seem to always stay competitive... and other sides that are traditionally shit and generally remain shit). It's got it's own problems with rampant greed and I don't think it's really a "solution" for modern football. And that's why the greediest of clubs wanted a Super League - it would have given them guaranteed money in a league they can't be relegated from... so there would be no real risk to generally being shit and uncompetitive in the Super League but they'd still be able to have a financial advantage in their domestic leagues... they intended to give themselves a permanent leg up in domestic leagues, not realising many of these leagues would tell them to fuck off if they went ahead with that plan.

I don't think there's any "fixing" football without a unified global response that I think is super unlikely... because getting a government to not act in the interests of the unbelievably wealthy is very difficult - and getting several governments worldwide to do that is even more difficult and probably impossible.

[Devil]

4 hours ago, Danny said:

I have a chip on my shoulder? Mate I genuinely do not care for or against United  I just find it baffling that people can be so in favour of how capitalism has warped European football when it helps their club out but are then against it when other clubs get one over on them. Either you like the system or you don't. I mean your own club has spent about £100m or so less than City have in the time period that Pep has been at the club, not including this Summer's transfers, and you don't have a word to say about yourselves being able to spend that much. And a £100m sounds like a lot to most clubs, but when the difference is about 800m vs 700m in a 5 or so year timespan it really isn't.

Either you're for the system that has created a monopoly on English football or you're not, but trying to deny that your own club haven't massively benefitted from it is just false information and trying to blame City and Chelsea only when your own club has purposely benefitted from the same system that encourages them to flourish is just hypocritical.

Again you are making the mistake of judging my opinion on City and PSG as a purely Manchester United argument. 

I will say it again, I'm a lover of football and I think City and PSG go against the spirit of the game as a competition.

I have zero issue with Arsenal, Spurs, Munich, Dortmund, Inter, Celtic or any European club having major success if it comes from money generated by the club commercially or via winning  competitions.

What I don't agree with is an owner with incredible wealth that can jeopardise competition as a whole.

I know the likes of Jack Walker have bought success in the past but there has to be a judgement call made when the wealth is at a level that it can elevate a club from nowhere to dominance in such a short space of time. 

As I've said before, how can it be a level playing field when clubs are clearly pushing themselves to the limits financially to keep with them and they are just ticking along knowing full well that nothing they offer or spend will see them in any trouble.

Hence why we snatched Sanchez on such an insane wage three years ago, we felt we needed to beat City to his signature because he'd strengthen them further.

They are playing all the top clubs of Europe like idiots and the bubble will eventually burst. The only clubs that seem to have any sense are the German clubs.

Who also share the same opinion as me on the oil rich clubs.

[Danny]

3 minutes ago, Devil said:

Again you are making the mistake of judging my opinion on City and PSG as a purely Manchester United argument. 

I will say it again, I'm a lover of football and I think City and PSG go against the spirit of the game as a competition.

I have zero issue with Arsenal, Spurs, Munich, Dortmund, Inter, Celtic or any European club having major success if it comes from money generated by the club commercially or via winning  competitions.

What I don't agree with is an owner with incredible wealth that can jeopardise competition as a whole.

I know the likes of Jack Walker have bought success in the past but there has to be a judgement call made when the wealth is at a level that it can elevate a club from nowhere to dominance in such a short space of time. 

As I've said before, how can it be a level playing field when clubs are clearly pushing themselves to the limits financially to keep with them and they are just ticking along knowing full well that nothing they offer or spend will see them in any trouble.

Hence why we snatched Sanchez on such an insane wage three years ago, we felt we needed to beat City to his signature because he'd strengthen them further.

They are playing all the top clubs of Europe like idiots and the bubble will eventually burst. The only clubs that seem to have any sense are the German clubs.

Who also share the same opinion as me on the oil rich clubs.

I know what you’re saying matey, and I’m not saying your opinion is based on you being a Man Utd fan. What I’m saying is tv money/prize money has only ever helped create a monopoly for clubs in the Prem, which has been as bad for the rest of the league as City blowing the traditionally bigger clubs out of the water has been for Arsenal, United, Liverpool. So much money that is made in the Prem comes from abroad, TV deals, merchandising...there really is no difference morally in making money from millions of people from abroad and making millions from one owner from abroad. It’s all the same capitalism. The old school morals that we hark over is more akin to socialism within sports.

So it seems hypocritical that you would be happy to have benefitted from the years of prize money, tv money, merchandising from Asia/America but get annoyed at City/Chelsea for joining in...because you might be old money and they might be new money, but it’s still all dirty money. If they hadn’t of done that it would literally just be a closed shop, funnily enough Man City have helped create a more open top 6 than the very closed off predecessor that was the top 4 because they have forced United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal to work harder. It opened up the European spaces and made things more competitive there with the inclusion of Spurs and Leicester.

But clearly we disagree on this so happy to leave it be.

 

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Tbh, "monopolies in football" existed before Serie A, the prem, and La Liga learned they could make shitloads of money "exporting" their football to foreign fans - where TV deals made Italy have the strongest league in the 90s, Spain in the early 2000s, and for a while our league has been flush with cash (although Spain's still been pretty dominant in Europe - but also the way La Liga's structured those deals... it really favours Real Madrid, Barcelona, and to a lesser extent but still disproportionately Atletico Madrid above all the other clubs).

But going through the history books, lots of clubs have sort of had a "hegemony" on success domestically before the sport became so commodified. I don't think "buying the league" is anything new - it's just the money is so obscene now, buying the league for a few years can establish being big for a very long time.

The American model would never work here, unless we could get all of Europe's top leagues to agree to salary caps... and unless we ended relegation for our top flight (because the pros of the American system are "there's greater parity" - the cons are "unambitious teams/owners don't have serious repercussions and still make shitloads"... even in American sports, where there is greater parity... there do seem to be sides that generally seem to always stay competitive... and other sides that are traditionally shit and generally remain shit). It's got it's own problems with rampant greed and I don't think it's really a "solution" for modern football. And that's why the greediest of clubs wanted a Super League - it would have given them guaranteed money in a league they can't be relegated from... so there would be no real risk to generally being shit and uncompetitive in the Super League but they'd still be able to have a financial advantage in their domestic leagues... they intended to give themselves a permanent leg up in domestic leagues, not realising many of these leagues would tell them to fuck off if they went ahead with that plan.

I don't think there's any "fixing" football without a unified global response that I think is super unlikely... because getting a government to not act in the interests of the unbelievably wealthy is very difficult - and getting several governments worldwide to do that is even more difficult and probably impossible.

Yeah I think the only way you can do it is by FIFA regulating every confederation and that will be close to impossible. Plus it would mean less power in Europe and other continents gaining more traction.

[Happy Blue]

Sorry, i thought this was the Harry Kane thread, my bad  

[Waylander]

Sad for Kane, I think given current prices £100m is fair yet Spurs being Spurs it won't happen.

Kane did not have a great Euros took a while to get on the score sheet and was not that mobile on the pitch.

Think he might have to stay there and leave on a free.

Earlier in the thread someone compared him to Kevin Phillips not a good analogy for me as Harry has been an England regular, Phillips hardly made more than one appearance if I recall correctly.

 

 

[Reluctant Striker]

I do think both Villa & Grealish are handling it better than Spurs & Kane are between them. I have read somewhere a Kane offer was rejected out of hand by Spurs. Before all the Grealish stuff.

It is a sad situation, but if Kane wants out, no matter how many goals he scores, how good his link up play can be, how irreplaceable he may seem.. Spurs should be taking the £100m or so & getting in 2 strikers.

I think I read someone make the point that Spurs actually improved in the years after Bale went. They're not likely to if they're holding onto Kane who essentially could be sulking & on really bad terms with some people at the club.. spreading the sourness among the squad.

[Storts]

4 hours ago, Reluctant Striker said:

I do think both Villa & Grealish are handling it better than Spurs & Kane are between them. I have read somewhere a Kane offer was rejected out of hand by Spurs. Before all the Grealish stuff.

It is a sad situation, but if Kane wants out, no matter how many goals he scores, how good his link up play can be, how irreplaceable he may seem.. Spurs should be taking the £100m or so & getting in 2 strikers.

I think I read someone make the point that Spurs actually improved in the years after Bale went. They're not likely to if they're holding onto Kane who essentially could be sulking & on really bad terms with some people at the club.. spreading the sourness among the squad.

Absolute nonsense 

[LFCMike]

9 hours ago, Reluctant Striker said:

I do think both Villa & Grealish are handling it better than Spurs & Kane are between them. I have read somewhere a Kane offer was rejected out of hand by Spurs. Before all the Grealish stuff.

It is a sad situation, but if Kane wants out, no matter how many goals he scores, how good his link up play can be, how irreplaceable he may seem.. Spurs should be taking the £100m or so & getting in 2 strikers.

I think I read someone make the point that Spurs actually improved in the years after Bale went. They're not likely to if they're holding onto Kane who essentially could be sulking & on really bad terms with some people at the club.. spreading the sourness among the squad.

Spurs will want much more than £100m and rightly so. It's the job of Kane's agent to ensure he can leave if the right opportunity comes along and that would have been a release clause when he signed his new contract 3 years ago. 

[LFCMike]

 

[Devil]

2 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

 

 Brilliant.

[Devil]

3 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

Spurs will want much more than £100m and rightly so. It's the job of Kane's agent to ensure he can leave if the right opportunity comes along and that would have been a release clause when he signed his new contract 3 years ago. 

 

If Lukaku is going for a reported 120 million then Levy want's to be banging on even more on the transfer fee. 

 

[DeadLinesman]

10 hours ago, Waylander said:

Sad for Kane, I think given current prices £100m is fair yet Spurs being Spurs it won't happen.

Kane did not have a great Euros took a while to get on the score sheet and was not that mobile on the pitch.

Think he might have to stay there and leave on a free.

Earlier in the thread someone compared him to Kevin Phillips not a good analogy for me as Harry has been an England regular, Phillips hardly made more than one appearance if I recall correctly.

 

 

Why would Spurs sell for £100m when he’s got a lengthy contract and Citeh just bid £100m for Grealish? They’d be fucking stupid.

[Honey Honey]

Transfer fees should be decided by a UEFA algorithm on market value, instead of the modern slavery of making someone stay at their employer because that employer didn't like what they got offered