Harry Kane

Jgplk1 said:

Definitely the best post I've read in a while. Is anyone a member on Blue Moon? I'd love to see how they react to that being posted on there ?

Click to expand...

markiespurs said:

Think he is becoming a money grabbing git.
when you look at it he signed a new contract and would have got a signing fee and probably a pay rise, if he hands in a transfer request he probably loses a shit load of money, going to City he will get a big singing on fee and a ridiculous salary. It all points to £ signs and i never thought he was that sort of player.

Click to expand...

Univarn said:

Big "man goes to work and does job" news vibes but actually news this time lol

Click to expand...

Blackcanary said:

City are trying to play poker with Levy without realising they're clutching only Uno cards. Bless them.

Click to expand...

idontgetit said:

City didn't need to sell players to buy Kane this year, they just needed to not spend £100m on a twat with a stupid haircut in a position they were already stacked in.

They had the money at the start of the window otherwise they wouldn't have signed Grealish. Following that logic, why the fuck is the deadline one week before the end of the window and not one week or more before the start of the season.

I'm still thinking there must be something to do with sponsorship deals in this mess.

Click to expand...

42hamlet said:

Probably no point in Kane handing in a transfer request yet anyway. It doesn't look as though City have even gotten close to offering us what we want minus any potential loyalty bonus he'd receive

Click to expand...

rez9000 said:

I know that you've not posted since this, and it was 60-odd pages ago and likely other far cleverer posters than me have already commented, but on the off-chance you're still reading and they haven't, but I feel too strongly to avoid chiming in:

Your comparison doesn't hold water. Discussing the relative merits of the different brands of a consumer good, like a phone, is not the same thing, because those entities are competing in a comparable manner. If one compares Samsung and Apple and mentions the use of Chinese sweatshop labour, they're both doing it - so that's a common factor that isn't germane to the conversation as there is no variability.

The difference is that your club's owners are the ruling family of a regime that destroys lives, that dehumanises human beings and every single microsecond of entertainment, success, moments observed bringing supposed glory to the name of your club is steeped in the blood of innocents. And the primary objective of your club's owners is to try and wipe the blood from their hands by having individuals such as yourself think kindly of them for the joy they have provided you. No other PL chairman has that particular characteristic.

Let me ask you this: if you witnessed someone mug another in the street and then walk into a shop and buy you a Mars bar with the money they'd just robbed, how comfortable would you be taking the chocolate? Would you be quite so eager to discuss the relative merits of Mars over Twix?

That's not to say that the other club chairmen are all squeaky-clean characters, but none of the others (not even Abramovich) has built their wealth off the back of a zealously pursued murderous, racist, sexist and homophobic philosophy and then using that money to try and cover their reprehensible behaviour. Certainly Abramovich is guilty of robbing the wealth of people during a febrile period of post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and he should be condemned for that (and I do condemn him for it), but he still didn't devolve so far as to engage in what the Al-Nahyans do, which they do willingly, happily and with the utmost zeal.

So, yes, any discussion that involves City, in any capacity, must include the owner's record of extrajudicial murder, the disappearances of people whose only sin is their political dissent, the repression of anyone who dares to be attracted to a member of the same sex, or has the temerity to be born with female genitalia, or is so cheeky as to have been born in a different country.

You may wish to divorce yourself from it. You may wish to cover your eyes and ignore precisely what your club has become - a vehicle designed to provide cover for the worst humanity has to offer. We've actually seen members of a Man City forum trying to claim that condemning City is racist; the cognitive dissonance in evidence there when City's owners are themselves among the most actively and viciously racist people in the world and actually put their bankrupt ideas into practice, is breathtaking. That's precisely what your owners love to see - normal human beings, who would ordinarily be sickened by the horrors the Al-Nahyans perpetuate, rushing to their defence, because their criminality happens to have helped the club lift some trophies.

Maybe it's understandable: sometimes some things are too big for us to care about. Fine. But if you don't want to involve yourself in that aspect, you can't deny that the fundamental issue exists nor that everything Man City does as a club is designed for a specific objective; therefore any discussion of the club's activities must include that objective, as any club's overall objective is implicitly part of a conversation about their activities. Trying to divorce the horror of what the Al-Nahyans are just because its uncomfortable is simply denying the truth.

The Al-Nahyans don't want to buy Kane only because he would increase the club's success. They want him because it will help perpetuate their objective of deflecting attention from the inhumanity they perpetrate far away in their gilded desert gulag.

Apologies to all for restirring an old post, but I really feel very strongly about this aspect of Man City's current existence.

Click to expand...

EJWTartanSpur said:

Someone should just go and plant that Rez post down squarely in the middle of the Blue Moon Harry Kane thread so we can all watch the resulting LOLs. Their attempts to counter it would only lead them further down the path of darkness and prove the point even further no doubt

Click to expand...

Ron Burgundy said:

They might well be acting spitefully

They know they can pay up, and that he wants to go - by waiting till the end of the window, they'll likely f*ck us

It's very possible, given the buyers, that they're acting badly

Click to expand...

KingNick said:

As did a lot of people on this site a couple of months ago, City really did think that Spurs were in financial difficulties because of the stadium costs and Covid.

Not only were we not, but every passing match and non-football event hosted at the stadium we now get stronger and stronger and have even less reason to accept their low offers. Love to see people get it so wrong and not get everything all their own way.

Click to expand...

Blackcanary said:

City are trying to play poker with Levy without realising they're clutching only Uno cards. Bless them.

Click to expand...

rez9000 said:

I know that you've not posted since this, and it was 60-odd pages ago and likely other far cleverer posters than me have already commented, but on the off-chance you're still reading and they haven't, but I feel too strongly to avoid chiming in:

Your comparison doesn't hold water. Discussing the relative merits of the different brands of a consumer good, like a phone, is not the same thing, because those entities are competing in a comparable manner. If one compares Samsung and Apple and mentions the use of Chinese sweatshop labour, they're both doing it - so that's a common factor that isn't germane to the conversation as there is no variability.

The difference is that your club's owners are the ruling family of a regime that destroys lives, that dehumanises human beings and every single microsecond of entertainment, success, moments observed bringing supposed glory to the name of your club is steeped in the blood of innocents. And the primary objective of your club's owners is to try and wipe the blood from their hands by having individuals such as yourself think kindly of them for the joy they have provided you. No other PL chairman has that particular characteristic.

Let me ask you this: if you witnessed someone mug another in the street and then walk into a shop and buy you a Mars bar with the money they'd just robbed, how comfortable would you be taking the chocolate? Would you be quite so eager to discuss the relative merits of Mars over Twix?

That's not to say that the other club chairmen are all squeaky-clean characters, but none of the others (not even Abramovich) has built their wealth off the back of a zealously pursued murderous, racist, sexist and homophobic philosophy and then using that money to try and cover their reprehensible behaviour. Certainly Abramovich is guilty of robbing the wealth of people during a febrile period of post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and he should be condemned for that (and I do condemn him for it), but he still didn't devolve so far as to engage in what the Al-Nahyans do, which they do willingly, happily and with the utmost zeal.

So, yes, any discussion that involves City, in any capacity, must include the owner's record of extrajudicial murder, the disappearances of people whose only sin is their political dissent, the repression of anyone who dares to be attracted to a member of the same sex, or has the temerity to be born with female genitalia, or is so cheeky as to have been born in a different country.

You may wish to divorce yourself from it. You may wish to cover your eyes and ignore precisely what your club has become - a vehicle designed to provide cover for the worst humanity has to offer. We've actually seen members of a Man City forum trying to claim that condemning City is racist; the cognitive dissonance in evidence there when City's owners are themselves among the most actively and viciously racist people in the world and actually put their bankrupt ideas into practice, is breathtaking. That's precisely what your owners love to see - normal human beings, who would ordinarily be sickened by the horrors the Al-Nahyans perpetuate, rushing to their defence, because their criminality happens to have helped the club lift some trophies.

Maybe it's understandable: sometimes some things are too big for us to care about. Fine. But if you don't want to involve yourself in that aspect, you can't deny that the fundamental issue exists nor that everything Man City does as a club is designed for a specific objective; therefore any discussion of the club's activities must include that objective, as any club's overall objective is implicitly part of a conversation about their activities. Trying to divorce the horror of what the Al-Nahyans are just because its uncomfortable is simply denying the truth.

The Al-Nahyans don't want to buy Kane only because he would increase the club's success. They want him because it will help perpetuate their objective of deflecting attention from the inhumanity they perpetrate far away in their gilded desert gulag.

Apologies to all for restirring an old post, but I really feel very strongly about this aspect of Man City's current existence.

Click to expand...

robspur said:

I think City are actually waiting longer for the right bid to stop us getting targets and becoming competitive- Sunday’s score just adds to that.

Kane isn’t match fit just now, so he won’t realistically contribute to them for a few weeks anyway. If they pay up now, they get no real benefit and we could end up with Vlahovic, Martinez and Tomiyasu + another.

they are playing it smart.

At the moment we’ll end up with£160m and no worthy players to sign

Click to expand...