comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by The Hybrid Doos (U10416)
posted 20 minutes ago
If Kane goes for big money we can rebuild and improve the squad, Liverpool thrived when they sold Countinho and reinvested the money in a couple of top class additions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or it could go the way you spent the Bale money
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bale money was spent on players like Eriksen, which helped Spurs to get regular CL football. So was very well spent.
Why is it total nonsense?
They never said Spurs would accept the bid, they just said they are looking to table an offer of £90m.
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 47 minutes ago
Basically Spurs without Kane are a mid-table side if they put some effort in
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which would still be better than Chelsea, whom without the money, would be a Championship club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you start with this one?
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by The Hybrid Doos (U10416)
posted 20 minutes ago
If Kane goes for big money we can rebuild and improve the squad, Liverpool thrived when they sold Countinho and reinvested the money in a couple of top class additions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or it could go the way you spent the Bale money
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bale money was spent on players like Eriksen, which helped Spurs to get regular CL football. So was very well spent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the rest of it?
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by The Hybrid Doos (U10416)
posted 20 minutes ago
If Kane goes for big money we can rebuild and improve the squad, Liverpool thrived when they sold Countinho and reinvested the money in a couple of top class additions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or it could go the way you spent the Bale money
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bale money was spent on players like Eriksen, which helped Spurs to get regular CL football. So was very well spent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You also spent considerable amounts on players like Soldado and Lamela who didn't/haven't shown any consistency when at Spurs.
comment by Son Of Gunnersaurus a.k.a SoG (U1310)
posted 3 hours, 24 minutes ago
Spurs definitely wont even consider entertaining any bid for anything below 120 million in my opinion and I severely doubt anyone will pay that much for an injury prone 28 year old.
I've no sympathy for Kane either. He chose to sign a new contract not so long ago so cant blame Tottenham for wanting a massive fee if he did want to go.
Its a bit like Zaha really - he's wanted out at crystal palace for the last year but prior to that he only recently signed a new contract. I if were those players I would have not signed and let the contract run down to a year left. Would have much better negotiating power with the club that way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's not injury prone ffs
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Fckthglzrs. (U1270)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 47 minutes ago
Basically Spurs without Kane are a mid-table side if they put some effort in
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which would still be better than Chelsea, whom without the money, would be a Championship club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you start with this one?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing isn't it. Chelsea were in the Premiership, winning trophies and finishing above Spurs
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Fckthglzrs. (U1270)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 47 minutes ago
Basically Spurs without Kane are a mid-table side if they put some effort in
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which would still be better than Chelsea, whom without the money, would be a Championship club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you start with this one?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing isn't it. Chelsea were in the Premiership, winning trophies and finishing above Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still won the FA cup more recently than Spurs prior to the takeover
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Fckthglzrs. (U1270)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 47 minutes ago
Basically Spurs without Kane are a mid-table side if they put some effort in
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which would still be better than Chelsea, whom without the money, would be a Championship club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you start with this one?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing isn't it. Chelsea were in the Premiership, winning trophies and finishing above Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, Chelsea DO have the money. We're not obliged to based this on a counterfactual parallel universe in which they are still run by Ken Bates.
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 ho... (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think there's any question Kane will still be able to do what he does up to his mid-30's. 30 and over is now younger than it used to be in football and strikers can maintain their levels better. That's why we're seeing so many top players do it beyond 30, and not just in this sport either.
Kane wasn't overplayed as a youngster, doesn't have any pace to lose anyway, and is a true professional that always keeps himself fit and healthy. No chance of a Rooney-type burn out anytime soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't see Kane playing at a top level into mid-thirties at all. Those players that do, who are still rare in the game, are fitness fanatics who keep themselves in top shape and rarely get injured. Kane has had a host of injuries throughout his career.
--------------------------------------------------------
Appearances of some of the world`s best players over a seven year period
Messi 350
Ronaldo 321
Kane 306
Salah 281
Aguero 265
Neymar 256
Mbappe 193 (six seasons)
Kane is the only player of this group of elite players other than the two freaks Messi and Ronaldo to have played over 300 club matches over the past seven seasons. So the nonsense that he is always injured is complete and utter nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said he was always injured and you're comparing him against older players, in Messi and Ronaldo and not players who will be 28.
On top of this you're comparing appearances rather than games missed when many of the players you list are given rests, playing in better squads, whereas Kane plays every game until he's injured.
I'm not sure why you're debating Kane gets a lot of injuries and players who pick up a lot of injured, don't often last into mid thirties at the top.
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 ho... (U20567)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 47 minutes ago
Basically Spurs without Kane are a mid-table side if they put some effort in
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which would still be better than Chelsea, whom without the money, would be a Championship club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More lemons for table 2 please.... Getting through the bitterness like there's no Tomorrow over here
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 ho... (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think there's any question Kane will still be able to do what he does up to his mid-30's. 30 and over is now younger than it used to be in football and strikers can maintain their levels better. That's why we're seeing so many top players do it beyond 30, and not just in this sport either.
Kane wasn't overplayed as a youngster, doesn't have any pace to lose anyway, and is a true professional that always keeps himself fit and healthy. No chance of a Rooney-type burn out anytime soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't see Kane playing at a top level into mid-thirties at all. Those players that do, who are still rare in the game, are fitness fanatics who keep themselves in top shape and rarely get injured. Kane has had a host of injuries throughout his career.
--------------------------------------------------------
Appearances of some of the world`s best players over a seven year period
Messi 350
Ronaldo 321
Kane 306
Salah 281
Aguero 265
Neymar 256
Mbappe 193 (six seasons)
Kane is the only player of this group of elite players other than the two freaks Messi and Ronaldo to have played over 300 club matches over the past seven seasons. So the nonsense that he is always injured is complete and utter nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said he was always injured and you're comparing him against older players, in Messi and Ronaldo and not players who will be 28.
On top of this you're comparing appearances rather than games missed when many of the players you list are given rests, playing in better squads, whereas Kane plays every game until he's injured.
I'm not sure why you're debating Kane gets a lot of injuries and players who pick up a lot of injured, don't often last into mid thirties at the top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He tends to get one injury a season which keeps him about for about six weeks, it's hardly grounds to label him as injury prone.
I think he's been unavailable for two games this season.
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Fckthglzrs. (U1270)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 47 minutes ago
Basically Spurs without Kane are a mid-table side if they put some effort in
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which would still be better than Chelsea, whom without the money, would be a Championship club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you start with this one?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing isn't it. Chelsea were in the Premiership, winning trophies and finishing above Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah Chelsea have always been a little tiddly club in West London. They nearly went bust in the 1990s, because they borrowed more than they could afford, so they could try to join the big boys. Then they had to get bailed out by a Russian crook. I don't make up the facts.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Fckthglzrs. (U1270)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 47 minutes ago
Basically Spurs without Kane are a mid-table side if they put some effort in
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which would still be better than Chelsea, whom without the money, would be a Championship club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you start with this one?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing isn't it. Chelsea were in the Premiership, winning trophies and finishing above Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still won the FA cup more recently than Spurs prior to the takeover
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup with borrowed money, they could not pay back.
comment by Edbo (U17933)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 ho... (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think there's any question Kane will still be able to do what he does up to his mid-30's. 30 and over is now younger than it used to be in football and strikers can maintain their levels better. That's why we're seeing so many top players do it beyond 30, and not just in this sport either.
Kane wasn't overplayed as a youngster, doesn't have any pace to lose anyway, and is a true professional that always keeps himself fit and healthy. No chance of a Rooney-type burn out anytime soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't see Kane playing at a top level into mid-thirties at all. Those players that do, who are still rare in the game, are fitness fanatics who keep themselves in top shape and rarely get injured. Kane has had a host of injuries throughout his career.
--------------------------------------------------------
Appearances of some of the world`s best players over a seven year period
Messi 350
Ronaldo 321
Kane 306
Salah 281
Aguero 265
Neymar 256
Mbappe 193 (six seasons)
Kane is the only player of this group of elite players other than the two freaks Messi and Ronaldo to have played over 300 club matches over the past seven seasons. So the nonsense that he is always injured is complete and utter nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said he was always injured and you're comparing him against older players, in Messi and Ronaldo and not players who will be 28.
On top of this you're comparing appearances rather than games missed when many of the players you list are given rests, playing in better squads, whereas Kane plays every game until he's injured.
I'm not sure why you're debating Kane gets a lot of injuries and players who pick up a lot of injured, don't often last into mid thirties at the top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He tends to get one injury a season which keeps him about for about six weeks, it's hardly grounds to label him as injury prone.
I think he's been unavailable for two games this season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was injury prone.
So let's try to make this easier. Let's say we're talking about a player from another club and there's no rose tinted glasses involved and every season said player misses your made up six weeks a season, or factually has missed 56 games through injury in the past five seasons and has a recurring ankle injury, at 28. Would you believe he'll be playing at the top level mid thirties?
I find that hard to believe and certainly as a buying club it would push down what he's worth.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 ho... (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think there's any question Kane will still be able to do what he does up to his mid-30's. 30 and over is now younger than it used to be in football and strikers can maintain their levels better. That's why we're seeing so many top players do it beyond 30, and not just in this sport either.
Kane wasn't overplayed as a youngster, doesn't have any pace to lose anyway, and is a true professional that always keeps himself fit and healthy. No chance of a Rooney-type burn out anytime soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't see Kane playing at a top level into mid-thirties at all. Those players that do, who are still rare in the game, are fitness fanatics who keep themselves in top shape and rarely get injured. Kane has had a host of injuries throughout his career.
--------------------------------------------------------
Appearances of some of the world`s best players over a seven year period
Messi 350
Ronaldo 321
Kane 306
Salah 281
Aguero 265
Neymar 256
Mbappe 193 (six seasons)
Kane is the only player of this group of elite players other than the two freaks Messi and Ronaldo to have played over 300 club matches over the past seven seasons. So the nonsense that he is always injured is complete and utter nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said he was always injured and you're comparing him against older players, in Messi and Ronaldo and not players who will be 28.
On top of this you're comparing appearances rather than games missed when many of the players you list are given rests, playing in better squads, whereas Kane plays every game until he's injured.
I'm not sure why you're debating Kane gets a lot of injuries and players who pick up a lot of injured, don't often last into mid thirties at the top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None of those players get rested.
I like all the excuses thrown around JA at the moment about Chelsea and City just "buying" trophies, with no regards considered to how it isn't just easy to have a load of money for assets which "guarantees" you success.
People are also saying it like it was any different to what went on 30 years ago.
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 ho... (U20567)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 ho... (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think there's any question Kane will still be able to do what he does up to his mid-30's. 30 and over is now younger than it used to be in football and strikers can maintain their levels better. That's why we're seeing so many top players do it beyond 30, and not just in this sport either.
Kane wasn't overplayed as a youngster, doesn't have any pace to lose anyway, and is a true professional that always keeps himself fit and healthy. No chance of a Rooney-type burn out anytime soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't see Kane playing at a top level into mid-thirties at all. Those players that do, who are still rare in the game, are fitness fanatics who keep themselves in top shape and rarely get injured. Kane has had a host of injuries throughout his career.
--------------------------------------------------------
Appearances of some of the world`s best players over a seven year period
Messi 350
Ronaldo 321
Kane 306
Salah 281
Aguero 265
Neymar 256
Mbappe 193 (six seasons)
Kane is the only player of this group of elite players other than the two freaks Messi and Ronaldo to have played over 300 club matches over the past seven seasons. So the nonsense that he is always injured is complete and utter nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said he was always injured and you're comparing him against older players, in Messi and Ronaldo and not players who will be 28.
On top of this you're comparing appearances rather than games missed when many of the players you list are given rests, playing in better squads, whereas Kane plays every game until he's injured.
I'm not sure why you're debating Kane gets a lot of injuries and players who pick up a lot of injured, don't often last into mid thirties at the top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None of those players get rested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but I'd rather go by actual facts than you making stuff up. For example Aguero, injuries took their toll and he began getting rested three seasons ago at least, now at 32 his days at the top are numbered. Mbappe, still very young, nothing to compare. Messi and Ronaldo, 33 and 36(?) respectively and available still at their age more than Kane, rested on occasion. No comparison. Salah not rested often but doesn't get injured. No comparison and won't last into mid thirties anyhow as pace is a massive part of his game. No comparison. Neymar, probably the same as Salah. No comparison.
Not many players play at the top mid thirties and those that do have impeccable injury records. Kane does not.
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Fckthglzrs. (U1270)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 47 minutes ago
Basically Spurs without Kane are a mid-table side if they put some effort in
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which would still be better than Chelsea, whom without the money, would be a Championship club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you start with this one?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing isn't it. Chelsea were in the Premiership, winning trophies and finishing above Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah Chelsea have always been a little tiddly club in West London. They nearly went bust in the 1990s, because they borrowed more than they could afford, so they could try to join the big boys. Then they had to get bailed out by a Russian crook. I don't make up the facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The facts are Chelsea were in the Premiership, winning trophies and finishing above Spurs.
It's not up for debate.
Must be pretty galling to see a ‘tiddly little club’ winning more trophies than Spurs even prior to the takeover.
No one spends £150Mil this summer on one player IMO.
Even Mbappe and Haaland I don't think command that price and they will be worth more than Kane due to their age and potential to be the best in the world.
Sandy's out of his depth here
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 27 minutes ago
I like all the excuses thrown around JA at the moment about Chelsea and City just "buying" trophies, with no regards considered to how it isn't just easy to have a load of money for assets which "guarantees" you success.
People are also saying it like it was any different to what went on 30 years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well City and Chelsea are just buying trophies, however you care to dress it up.
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Fckthglzrs. (U1270)
posted 4 minutes ago
Sandy's out of his depth here
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL Sandy posting facts. The rest just posting made up nonsense.
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Fckthglzrs. (U1270)
posted 4 minutes ago
Sandy's out of his depth here
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL Sandy posting facts. The rest just posting made up nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Kane's left leg's worth £90m
Sign in if you want to comment
Ar least try to make it plausable if
Page 4 of 5
posted on 5/5/21
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by The Hybrid Doos (U10416)
posted 20 minutes ago
If Kane goes for big money we can rebuild and improve the squad, Liverpool thrived when they sold Countinho and reinvested the money in a couple of top class additions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or it could go the way you spent the Bale money
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bale money was spent on players like Eriksen, which helped Spurs to get regular CL football. So was very well spent.
posted on 5/5/21
Why is it total nonsense?
They never said Spurs would accept the bid, they just said they are looking to table an offer of £90m.
posted on 5/5/21
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 47 minutes ago
Basically Spurs without Kane are a mid-table side if they put some effort in
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which would still be better than Chelsea, whom without the money, would be a Championship club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you start with this one?
posted on 5/5/21
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by The Hybrid Doos (U10416)
posted 20 minutes ago
If Kane goes for big money we can rebuild and improve the squad, Liverpool thrived when they sold Countinho and reinvested the money in a couple of top class additions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or it could go the way you spent the Bale money
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bale money was spent on players like Eriksen, which helped Spurs to get regular CL football. So was very well spent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the rest of it?
posted on 5/5/21
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by The Hybrid Doos (U10416)
posted 20 minutes ago
If Kane goes for big money we can rebuild and improve the squad, Liverpool thrived when they sold Countinho and reinvested the money in a couple of top class additions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or it could go the way you spent the Bale money
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bale money was spent on players like Eriksen, which helped Spurs to get regular CL football. So was very well spent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You also spent considerable amounts on players like Soldado and Lamela who didn't/haven't shown any consistency when at Spurs.
posted on 5/5/21
comment by Son Of Gunnersaurus a.k.a SoG (U1310)
posted 3 hours, 24 minutes ago
Spurs definitely wont even consider entertaining any bid for anything below 120 million in my opinion and I severely doubt anyone will pay that much for an injury prone 28 year old.
I've no sympathy for Kane either. He chose to sign a new contract not so long ago so cant blame Tottenham for wanting a massive fee if he did want to go.
Its a bit like Zaha really - he's wanted out at crystal palace for the last year but prior to that he only recently signed a new contract. I if were those players I would have not signed and let the contract run down to a year left. Would have much better negotiating power with the club that way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's not injury prone ffs
posted on 5/5/21
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Fckthglzrs. (U1270)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 47 minutes ago
Basically Spurs without Kane are a mid-table side if they put some effort in
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which would still be better than Chelsea, whom without the money, would be a Championship club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you start with this one?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing isn't it. Chelsea were in the Premiership, winning trophies and finishing above Spurs
posted on 5/5/21
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Fckthglzrs. (U1270)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 47 minutes ago
Basically Spurs without Kane are a mid-table side if they put some effort in
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which would still be better than Chelsea, whom without the money, would be a Championship club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you start with this one?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing isn't it. Chelsea were in the Premiership, winning trophies and finishing above Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still won the FA cup more recently than Spurs prior to the takeover
posted on 5/5/21
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Fckthglzrs. (U1270)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 47 minutes ago
Basically Spurs without Kane are a mid-table side if they put some effort in
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which would still be better than Chelsea, whom without the money, would be a Championship club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you start with this one?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing isn't it. Chelsea were in the Premiership, winning trophies and finishing above Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, Chelsea DO have the money. We're not obliged to based this on a counterfactual parallel universe in which they are still run by Ken Bates.
posted on 5/5/21
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 ho... (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think there's any question Kane will still be able to do what he does up to his mid-30's. 30 and over is now younger than it used to be in football and strikers can maintain their levels better. That's why we're seeing so many top players do it beyond 30, and not just in this sport either.
Kane wasn't overplayed as a youngster, doesn't have any pace to lose anyway, and is a true professional that always keeps himself fit and healthy. No chance of a Rooney-type burn out anytime soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't see Kane playing at a top level into mid-thirties at all. Those players that do, who are still rare in the game, are fitness fanatics who keep themselves in top shape and rarely get injured. Kane has had a host of injuries throughout his career.
--------------------------------------------------------
Appearances of some of the world`s best players over a seven year period
Messi 350
Ronaldo 321
Kane 306
Salah 281
Aguero 265
Neymar 256
Mbappe 193 (six seasons)
Kane is the only player of this group of elite players other than the two freaks Messi and Ronaldo to have played over 300 club matches over the past seven seasons. So the nonsense that he is always injured is complete and utter nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said he was always injured and you're comparing him against older players, in Messi and Ronaldo and not players who will be 28.
On top of this you're comparing appearances rather than games missed when many of the players you list are given rests, playing in better squads, whereas Kane plays every game until he's injured.
I'm not sure why you're debating Kane gets a lot of injuries and players who pick up a lot of injured, don't often last into mid thirties at the top.
posted on 5/5/21
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 ho... (U20567)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 47 minutes ago
Basically Spurs without Kane are a mid-table side if they put some effort in
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which would still be better than Chelsea, whom without the money, would be a Championship club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More lemons for table 2 please.... Getting through the bitterness like there's no Tomorrow over here
posted on 5/5/21
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 ho... (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think there's any question Kane will still be able to do what he does up to his mid-30's. 30 and over is now younger than it used to be in football and strikers can maintain their levels better. That's why we're seeing so many top players do it beyond 30, and not just in this sport either.
Kane wasn't overplayed as a youngster, doesn't have any pace to lose anyway, and is a true professional that always keeps himself fit and healthy. No chance of a Rooney-type burn out anytime soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't see Kane playing at a top level into mid-thirties at all. Those players that do, who are still rare in the game, are fitness fanatics who keep themselves in top shape and rarely get injured. Kane has had a host of injuries throughout his career.
--------------------------------------------------------
Appearances of some of the world`s best players over a seven year period
Messi 350
Ronaldo 321
Kane 306
Salah 281
Aguero 265
Neymar 256
Mbappe 193 (six seasons)
Kane is the only player of this group of elite players other than the two freaks Messi and Ronaldo to have played over 300 club matches over the past seven seasons. So the nonsense that he is always injured is complete and utter nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said he was always injured and you're comparing him against older players, in Messi and Ronaldo and not players who will be 28.
On top of this you're comparing appearances rather than games missed when many of the players you list are given rests, playing in better squads, whereas Kane plays every game until he's injured.
I'm not sure why you're debating Kane gets a lot of injuries and players who pick up a lot of injured, don't often last into mid thirties at the top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He tends to get one injury a season which keeps him about for about six weeks, it's hardly grounds to label him as injury prone.
I think he's been unavailable for two games this season.
posted on 5/5/21
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Fckthglzrs. (U1270)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 47 minutes ago
Basically Spurs without Kane are a mid-table side if they put some effort in
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which would still be better than Chelsea, whom without the money, would be a Championship club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you start with this one?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing isn't it. Chelsea were in the Premiership, winning trophies and finishing above Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah Chelsea have always been a little tiddly club in West London. They nearly went bust in the 1990s, because they borrowed more than they could afford, so they could try to join the big boys. Then they had to get bailed out by a Russian crook. I don't make up the facts.
posted on 5/5/21
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Fckthglzrs. (U1270)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 47 minutes ago
Basically Spurs without Kane are a mid-table side if they put some effort in
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which would still be better than Chelsea, whom without the money, would be a Championship club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you start with this one?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing isn't it. Chelsea were in the Premiership, winning trophies and finishing above Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still won the FA cup more recently than Spurs prior to the takeover
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup with borrowed money, they could not pay back.
posted on 5/5/21
comment by Edbo (U17933)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 ho... (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think there's any question Kane will still be able to do what he does up to his mid-30's. 30 and over is now younger than it used to be in football and strikers can maintain their levels better. That's why we're seeing so many top players do it beyond 30, and not just in this sport either.
Kane wasn't overplayed as a youngster, doesn't have any pace to lose anyway, and is a true professional that always keeps himself fit and healthy. No chance of a Rooney-type burn out anytime soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't see Kane playing at a top level into mid-thirties at all. Those players that do, who are still rare in the game, are fitness fanatics who keep themselves in top shape and rarely get injured. Kane has had a host of injuries throughout his career.
--------------------------------------------------------
Appearances of some of the world`s best players over a seven year period
Messi 350
Ronaldo 321
Kane 306
Salah 281
Aguero 265
Neymar 256
Mbappe 193 (six seasons)
Kane is the only player of this group of elite players other than the two freaks Messi and Ronaldo to have played over 300 club matches over the past seven seasons. So the nonsense that he is always injured is complete and utter nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said he was always injured and you're comparing him against older players, in Messi and Ronaldo and not players who will be 28.
On top of this you're comparing appearances rather than games missed when many of the players you list are given rests, playing in better squads, whereas Kane plays every game until he's injured.
I'm not sure why you're debating Kane gets a lot of injuries and players who pick up a lot of injured, don't often last into mid thirties at the top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He tends to get one injury a season which keeps him about for about six weeks, it's hardly grounds to label him as injury prone.
I think he's been unavailable for two games this season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was injury prone.
So let's try to make this easier. Let's say we're talking about a player from another club and there's no rose tinted glasses involved and every season said player misses your made up six weeks a season, or factually has missed 56 games through injury in the past five seasons and has a recurring ankle injury, at 28. Would you believe he'll be playing at the top level mid thirties?
I find that hard to believe and certainly as a buying club it would push down what he's worth.
posted on 5/5/21
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 ho... (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think there's any question Kane will still be able to do what he does up to his mid-30's. 30 and over is now younger than it used to be in football and strikers can maintain their levels better. That's why we're seeing so many top players do it beyond 30, and not just in this sport either.
Kane wasn't overplayed as a youngster, doesn't have any pace to lose anyway, and is a true professional that always keeps himself fit and healthy. No chance of a Rooney-type burn out anytime soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't see Kane playing at a top level into mid-thirties at all. Those players that do, who are still rare in the game, are fitness fanatics who keep themselves in top shape and rarely get injured. Kane has had a host of injuries throughout his career.
--------------------------------------------------------
Appearances of some of the world`s best players over a seven year period
Messi 350
Ronaldo 321
Kane 306
Salah 281
Aguero 265
Neymar 256
Mbappe 193 (six seasons)
Kane is the only player of this group of elite players other than the two freaks Messi and Ronaldo to have played over 300 club matches over the past seven seasons. So the nonsense that he is always injured is complete and utter nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said he was always injured and you're comparing him against older players, in Messi and Ronaldo and not players who will be 28.
On top of this you're comparing appearances rather than games missed when many of the players you list are given rests, playing in better squads, whereas Kane plays every game until he's injured.
I'm not sure why you're debating Kane gets a lot of injuries and players who pick up a lot of injured, don't often last into mid thirties at the top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None of those players get rested.
posted on 5/5/21
I like all the excuses thrown around JA at the moment about Chelsea and City just "buying" trophies, with no regards considered to how it isn't just easy to have a load of money for assets which "guarantees" you success.
People are also saying it like it was any different to what went on 30 years ago.
posted on 5/5/21
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 ho... (U20567)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 ho... (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think there's any question Kane will still be able to do what he does up to his mid-30's. 30 and over is now younger than it used to be in football and strikers can maintain their levels better. That's why we're seeing so many top players do it beyond 30, and not just in this sport either.
Kane wasn't overplayed as a youngster, doesn't have any pace to lose anyway, and is a true professional that always keeps himself fit and healthy. No chance of a Rooney-type burn out anytime soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't see Kane playing at a top level into mid-thirties at all. Those players that do, who are still rare in the game, are fitness fanatics who keep themselves in top shape and rarely get injured. Kane has had a host of injuries throughout his career.
--------------------------------------------------------
Appearances of some of the world`s best players over a seven year period
Messi 350
Ronaldo 321
Kane 306
Salah 281
Aguero 265
Neymar 256
Mbappe 193 (six seasons)
Kane is the only player of this group of elite players other than the two freaks Messi and Ronaldo to have played over 300 club matches over the past seven seasons. So the nonsense that he is always injured is complete and utter nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said he was always injured and you're comparing him against older players, in Messi and Ronaldo and not players who will be 28.
On top of this you're comparing appearances rather than games missed when many of the players you list are given rests, playing in better squads, whereas Kane plays every game until he's injured.
I'm not sure why you're debating Kane gets a lot of injuries and players who pick up a lot of injured, don't often last into mid thirties at the top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None of those players get rested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but I'd rather go by actual facts than you making stuff up. For example Aguero, injuries took their toll and he began getting rested three seasons ago at least, now at 32 his days at the top are numbered. Mbappe, still very young, nothing to compare. Messi and Ronaldo, 33 and 36(?) respectively and available still at their age more than Kane, rested on occasion. No comparison. Salah not rested often but doesn't get injured. No comparison and won't last into mid thirties anyhow as pace is a massive part of his game. No comparison. Neymar, probably the same as Salah. No comparison.
Not many players play at the top mid thirties and those that do have impeccable injury records. Kane does not.
posted on 5/5/21
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Fckthglzrs. (U1270)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 47 minutes ago
Basically Spurs without Kane are a mid-table side if they put some effort in
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which would still be better than Chelsea, whom without the money, would be a Championship club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you start with this one?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing isn't it. Chelsea were in the Premiership, winning trophies and finishing above Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah Chelsea have always been a little tiddly club in West London. They nearly went bust in the 1990s, because they borrowed more than they could afford, so they could try to join the big boys. Then they had to get bailed out by a Russian crook. I don't make up the facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The facts are Chelsea were in the Premiership, winning trophies and finishing above Spurs.
It's not up for debate.
posted on 5/5/21
Must be pretty galling to see a ‘tiddly little club’ winning more trophies than Spurs even prior to the takeover.
posted on 5/5/21
No one spends £150Mil this summer on one player IMO.
Even Mbappe and Haaland I don't think command that price and they will be worth more than Kane due to their age and potential to be the best in the world.
posted on 5/5/21
Sandy's out of his depth here
posted on 5/5/21
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 27 minutes ago
I like all the excuses thrown around JA at the moment about Chelsea and City just "buying" trophies, with no regards considered to how it isn't just easy to have a load of money for assets which "guarantees" you success.
People are also saying it like it was any different to what went on 30 years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well City and Chelsea are just buying trophies, however you care to dress it up.
posted on 5/5/21
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Fckthglzrs. (U1270)
posted 4 minutes ago
Sandy's out of his depth here
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL Sandy posting facts. The rest just posting made up nonsense.
posted on 5/5/21
comment by sandy, Ryan Mason, super league boss for 24 hours (U20567)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Fckthglzrs. (U1270)
posted 4 minutes ago
Sandy's out of his depth here
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL Sandy posting facts. The rest just posting made up nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Kane's left leg's worth £90m
Page 4 of 5