The Footie Thread

[Orikoru]

I may be a voice in the wilderness but I’m not keen on the idea of Kane. Spurs are likely to hold out for silly money for a player who is a couple of months shy of his 30th birthday. Don’t get me wrong, I’d happily see him at United, but if we’re going to spend £100m plus I’d rather see us move heaven and earth to recruit Victor Osimhen. He’s been scoring at better than a goal every other game since 2018 and has seen a fantastic return at Napoli. And his best years are ahead of him as he’s only 24.

‘Keeper wise, I like David Raya. There’s not an awful lot to choose between the top goalkeepers in the Premier League when it comes to shot stopping these days, but Raya seems well capable of playing the way Ten Hag wants. And he wouldn’t cost anywhere near the astronomical wages De Gea is allegedly on.

You did the same for RVP and he won you a title. Kane's still got at least 4 years in him of banging goals and striving to get that Prem record. I don't think we'd get £100m but 90 might do it.

Edit: Just realised like 3 other people said the same thing on the page over.

 

[Billysboots]

You did the same for RVP and he won you a title. Kane's still got at least 4 years in him of banging goals and striving to get that Prem record. I don't think we'd get £100m but 90 might do it.

And I’m torn, genuinely, because I really like Harry Kane and believe he can do a job for United.

BUT, at nearly 30 the niggling injuries are going to start to keep him out of games. They will take longer to recover from. Any pace he has, and he’s not the quickest anyway, will start to leave his legs.

If the club are going to spend c.£100m on a striker I’d far rather it be spent on a player six years Kane’s junior.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

And I’m torn, genuinely, because I really like Harry Kane and believe he can do a job for United.

BUT, at nearly 30 the niggling injuries are going to start to keep him out of games. They will take longer to recover from. Any pace he has, and he’s not the quickest anyway, will start to leave his legs.

If the club are going to spend c.£100m on a striker I’d far rather it be spent on a player six years Kane’s junior.

It's an interesting one. Do you aim for now and the next 2-3 seasons or look further down the track. You paid over the odds, in terms of age, for Casemiro but what an impact he has had for you. There is utd with him playing and utd without, he's key to you right now. If Kane could do the same then he would be worth it. The fee would be excessive but you have it so go for it (I'd prefer you not to but here speaks an Everton fan )

 

[Orikoru]

And I’m torn, genuinely, because I really like Harry Kane and believe he can do a job for United.

BUT, at nearly 30 the niggling injuries are going to start to keep him out of games. They will take longer to recover from. Any pace he has, and he’s not the quickest anyway, will start to leave his legs.

If the club are going to spend c.£100m on a striker I’d far rather it be spent on a player six years Kane’s junior.

I see this the opposite way, players who never relied on pace tend to stay at the top for longer. Like Sheringham as one example.

 

[Billysboots]

It's an interesting one. Do you aim for now and the next 2-3 seasons or look further down the track. You paid over the odds, in terms of age, for Casemiro but what an impact he has had for you. There is utd with him playing and utd without, he's key to you right now. If Kane could do the same then he would be worth it. The fee would be excessive but you have it so go for it (I'd prefer you not to but here speaks an Everton fan )

Which is precisely why I’m rather torn.

I was thinking of Casemiro when I typed my reply, aware that his signing rather undermined my argument. But the need for a defensive midfielder was beyond urgent, where as the club could still fall back on Martial, albeit rather injury prone, and Rashford whilst they considered a longer term solution to the striker crisis. It was no secret they were after a striker in January, but the funds were not there which is why they went for Weghorst. He just hasn’t worked, but has done a job of sorts.

From a United perspective I have to say I’m a little fed up of us bringing in strikers who are towards the end of their careers rather than the beginning. Ibrahimovic, Cavanai, Ronaldo - all relatively short term stop gaps who have all done a job, but none of them were signings for the future.

As a football fan first and foremost I want to be excited by the names I see on the team sheet and I’d love to see a young striker with bags of talent to go with their long term potential become the focal point of our medium to long term future. Kane just doesn’t fit that bill.

 

[Bdill93]

Which is precisely why I’m rather torn.

I was thinking of Casemiro when I typed my reply, aware that his signing rather undermined my argument. But the need for a defensive midfielder was beyond urgent, where as the club could still fall back on Martial, albeit rather injury prone, and Rashford whilst they considered a longer term solution to the striker crisis. It was no secret they were after a striker in January, but the funds were not there which is why they went for Weghorst. He just hasn’t worked, but has done a job of sorts.

From a United perspective I have to say I’m a little fed up of us bringing in strikers who are towards the end of their careers rather than the beginning. Ibrahimovic, Cavanai, Ronaldo - all relatively short term stop gaps who have all done a job, but none of them were signings for the future.

As a football fan first and foremost I want to be excited by the names I see on the team sheet and I’d love to see a young striker with bags of talent to go with their long term potential become the focal point of our medium to long term future. Kane just doesn’t fit that bill.

Problem is - who does?

Other than Haaland there are no outstanding talents that can slot right in straight away atm. They're all a work in progress.

Nunez cost 85m and his output whilst good, hasn't been anything like Haaland. Don't think he'd score more at United than he has at Liverpool.

There's no one proven and young available.

 

[nickjdavis]

If Kane has got 3 or 4 years in him bagging 20 goals a season I'd take him at Newcastle as a replacement for Wilson (who cant have much more than another season in him)....but not at 100 mil....60-70 would be more like it.

Only trouble is when you blow a big figure on one player is that it restricts what you can do in other areas and where we really need to improve is general strength in depth...so if we lose a key player for a while (or need to rest players) the team isnt overly impacted by what comes off the bench. Our back four must be utterly knackered and deserve a few weeks on the beach. They're not going to be able to continue next season playing PL/Europe week in week out without some respite in the form of cover.

We are not yet at the stage where we can be making "marquee" signings.....give it another 2 seasons before that happens and build from a stable base. Be interesting to see what Dan Ashworth delivers over the summer...although appointed in Feb 2022 he only took up his role last November so hasn't had a huge amount of time to affect previous transfer windows. Its going to be an interesting summer.

 

[HomecountiesJohn]

Problem is - who does?

Other than Haaland there are no outstanding talents that can slot right in straight away atm. They're all a work in progress.

Nunez cost 85m and his output whilst good, hasn't been anything like Haaland. Don't think he'd score more at United than he has at Liverpool.

There's no one proven and young available.

No player should be compared with Haaland, he's a complete freak.
We have seen in history how there is always a generation of freak sportsmen in each sport whether it's Football, Rugby, Cricket,Snooker, Darts etc. They are few and far between. Haaland is the current one. There is so much talent in world football at the moment. Problem is fans do not give these players time. The finest example this season is both Antony and Nunez have been ridiculed and written off as duds.

 

[Swango1980]

And I’m torn, genuinely, because I really like Harry Kane and believe he can do a job for United.

BUT, at nearly 30 the niggling injuries are going to start to keep him out of games. They will take longer to recover from. Any pace he has, and he’s not the quickest anyway, will start to leave his legs.

If the club are going to spend c.£100m on a striker I’d far rather it be spent on a player six years Kane’s junior.

I'd have Kane in a heartbeat. Any signing, regardless of age, will be a risk. Could sign a promising youngster from Europe, and perhaps they'll struggle to hit the ground running. Perhaps they could be another Martial? Harry Kane is a class player, and I suspect his style of play would really fit Man Utd and what ten Hag wants. He doesn't really need pace, when he can drop deeper, and play the quarterback for the pacy players around him. I think his vision would help unlock opportunities much more for the likes of Rashford and Antony, whilst in return he'll find great positions for them to find a pass (and hopefully help them make better decisions).

I think Kane would be like Weghorst, with the exception that he can hold the ball up, he can beat players, he can head the ball, he is a more intelligent footballer, he is a better passer, he has better vision and he can score goals.

 

[Skytot]

Where it went wrong is they don’t have the strength and quality of squad that City have.

Can’t understand your negativity of City this season you’ve won league 5 out of 6 times recently.

Over that time City’s oil money has brought them the titles and trophies

No club can compete and buy trophies like that, well Chelsea are trying but they are a mess at the moment.

Can’t complete with City oil money .
Have read who’s spent the most money in the last 5 seasons. City have one one the best managers ever and the club as whole is run brilliantly. Perhaps you should look at why some of these clubs on the list have under achieved.

Premier League net spend table over the last five years

Forget the league table, it's all about the Premier League net spend table. And Chelsea, Man Utd, Arsenal and Tottenham are ahead of the other 16.

www.football365.com

 

[Orikoru]

Which is precisely why I’m rather torn.

I was thinking of Casemiro when I typed my reply, aware that his signing rather undermined my argument. But the need for a defensive midfielder was beyond urgent, where as the club could still fall back on Martial, albeit rather injury prone, and Rashford whilst they considered a longer term solution to the striker crisis. It was no secret they were after a striker in January, but the funds were not there which is why they went for Weghorst. He just hasn’t worked, but has done a job of sorts.

From a United perspective I have to say I’m a little fed up of us bringing in strikers who are towards the end of their careers rather than the beginning. Ibrahimovic, Cavanai, Ronaldo - all relatively short term stop gaps who have all done a job, but none of them were signings for the future.

As a football fan first and foremost I want to be excited by the names I see on the team sheet and I’d love to see a young striker with bags of talent to go with their long term potential become the focal point of our medium to long term future. Kane just doesn’t fit that bill.

The difference is any younger player is a gamble, will they be able to adapt if coming from another country, will they be able to make the step up if coming from a smaller club. With Kane it's as near as certain as you're going to get that he gives you over 20 goals per season. And I wouldn't like it to Zlatan etc those guys were all 34+?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Can’t complete with City oil money .
Have read who’s spent the most money in the last 5 seasons. City have one one the best managers ever and the club as whole is run brilliantly. Perhaps you should look at why some of these clubs on the list have under achieved.

Premier League net spend table over the last five years

Forget the league table, it's all about the Premier League net spend table. And Chelsea, Man Utd, Arsenal and Tottenham are ahead of the other 16.

www.football365.com

Why just the last 5 years ?

What about all the spending in the years before to allow the club to then just add in on the odd player each season. Can’t just narrow down a search field - and “run the club brilliantly” ? If you mean by ignore financial rules so they can spend whatever they want -


And also the spending this season won’t take into account the true cost of someone like Haaland

His fee to Dortmund maybe £50mil

But that doent take into account the £50mil to the agents , signing fee and also money to his dad - plus his £800k wages a week - the cost of him will be over £200mil

 

[HomecountiesJohn]

I think Kane would be like Weghorst, with the exception that he can hold the ball up, he can beat players, he can head the ball, he is a more intelligent footballer, he is a better passer, he has better vision and he can score goals.

So Kane is nothing like Weghorst then?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Why just the last 5 years ?

What about all the spending in the years before to allow the club to then just add in on the odd player each season. Can’t just narrow down a search field - and “run the club brilliantly” ? If you mean by ignore financial rules so they can spend whatever they want -


And also the spending this season won’t take into account the true cost of someone like Haaland

His fee to Dortmund maybe £50mil

But that doent take into account the £50mil to the agents , signing fee and also money to his dad - plus his £800k wages a week - the cost of him will be over £200mil

City had to kick-start things so no wonder they spent big. The last 5 years show they have calmed down, comparatively speaking, and also have an excellent academy bringing players through. I suspect the next 5 will be similar to the last 5. Their monster spending says are over.

In terms of the Haarland fee, that's the same with all signings. You think Liverpool only paid the quoted fee for Nunez, Diaz etc? Salah doesn't get loyalty bonuses Inc agents fees each year? It's an absolute scandal but it's part of modern football and not exclusive to one club.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

City had to kick-start things so no wonder they spent big. The last 5 years show they have calmed down, comparatively speaking, and also have an excellent academy bringing players through. I suspect the next 5 will be similar to the last 5. Their monster spending says are over.

In terms of the Haarland fee, that's the same with all signings. You think Liverpool only paid the quoted fee for Nunez, Diaz etc? Salah doesn't get loyalty bonuses Inc agents fees each year? It's an absolute scandal but it's part of modern football and not exclusive to one club.

But that spending before can’t be ignored when people are giving reasons why Citys squad is stronger than most - because of that huge spending before hand has given them the platform to enabled them to just top up as each season goes by- not many clubs have that luxury and that huge spend was also done outside the rules that all clubs voted on - so it’s messy and dirty. Even now when there are claims of commercial income bigger than any other club in the sport which allows them to spent those level of wages on Haaland etc.

They are using their creative accounting to bring in more money than they spend to make it look like they have calmed down a bit.

It why the Premier League charges and what happens with them is prob the most important thing that’s happened to the Prem in decades - what happens next will shape the league and how it will be going forward.

 

[Beezerk]

Poor us again lol.
For me I love that City are doing great, I’d prefer a British team to be up there for European honours than the usual Real, Barca, Bayern etc.
I don’t get hung up too much on where the money comes from either, you can be certain of one thing, if Liverpool were to get taken over by a Saudi Prince the fans wouldn’t be moaning about it

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Poor us again lol.
For me I love that City are doing great, I’d prefer a British team to be up there for European honours than the usual Real, Barca, Bayern etc.
I don’t get hung up too much on where the money comes from either, you can be certain of one thing, if Liverpool were to get taken over by a Saudi Prince the fans wouldn’t be moaning about it

Nothing to do with “poor us”

Every club has rules they have to follow - why should a team be able to ignore them ? Even more so when it’s at the detriment of the league - unless you want to see City win the league every year

And you couldn’t be more wrong about a Saudi Prince taking over Liverpool - certainly don’t want the club to be state owned or be part of any sportswashing exercise

Nothing is better than a club that self funds itself within the rules to win

 

[Bdill93]

Nothing to do with “poor us”

Every club has rules they have to follow - why should a team be able to ignore them ? Even more so when it’s at the detriment of the league - unless you want to see City win the league every year

And you couldn’t be more wrong about a Saudi Prince taking over Liverpool - certainly don’t want the club to be state owned or be part of any sportswashing exercise

Nothing is better than a club that self funds itself within the rules to win

Agree with all of this.

I'm sure Newcastle's owners are watching the City lawsuit tightly, if they get away with it with nothing more than fines then what's to stop any owner just copying the model.

 

[Orikoru]

I'd happily see City win the league every year. That means Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal haven't won it.

 

[PJ87]

I'd happily see City win the league every year. That means Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal haven't won it.

Yet to meet a city fan that's unlikable aswell