Ethan

This whole narrative of "£28m more would have got you Kane" really frustrates me. For starters are we now including his add-ons to the overall fee because he's an #MUFC player? It so far is £64m, not £72m, so that makes the original statement incorrect. Also, that £100m is a completely hypothetical figure made up in the past, he may go for that or less than that to Bayern, but the price for us and Bayern wouldn't be the same. Tottenham don't have to worry about Bayern as they won't have to face them. Now then when it comes to overall cost, it shows again why that first statement is misleading. Let's pretend we could get Harry Kane for £100m, add on his reported wage demands of £575k a week and for a 4 year contract that is all of a sudden a £220m overall cost, for a player that by the end of their contract will have a tiny potential sell-on value. Compare that to the £64m transfer fee of Rasmus Hojlund and the £80k a week that Rasmus Hojlund has reportedly agreed to and that gives you an overall cost of £85m over the 5 year deal. So that means the overall package difference in price is actually closer to £135m not £28m as people have said. After his contract has run out also Rasmus Hojlund will be 25 or 26 if the extra year is triggered, this will be a player approaching their prime with their highest resell value. Meaning not only does the deal make more financial sense short term, but long term also. Yes Harry Kane is a better, more complete player right now, but I'm fed up with stop gaps and someone like Hojlund is who we've been crying out for for years. This will also allow us to continue to explore the market. To put it into further perspective, with fee and wage, Onana will cost around £69m over 5 years, add that to Hojlund's £85m and you still £66m to buy Amrabat from what could have got you just Harry Kane.