- Sep 25, 2011
- 2,052
- 5,734
I agree with most of that in general except for the bold part.It feels like people don't understand that there are 3 parties to any potential transaction.
ALL of the parties have leverage.
ALL of the parties have weaknesses.
Spurs have leverage because they have Kane under contract. Spurs do not have to sell to any club, at any price - unless Spurs want to sell.
Kane has leverage because he is under contract, and can insist on seeing out that contract, and refuse all moves to other clubs.
Bayern has leverage because they have what Spurs potentially want, and what Kane potentially wants - money, long-term contract, and opportunity to compete for trophies.
Spurs weakness: financially, they cannot afford to let Kane walk away for free. The cost to replace him and upgrade other positions is significant.
Kane's weakness - he does not know what the market will look like next summer. If he does an ACL in March - what teams will be in, and what kind of long term contract would they offer? Same if Kane has an off-year (we just saw Sonny go from Golden Boot to Hot Mess) - what is the market for a 31 yo striker coming off a down year? Will he get the money or the contract length, or the teams he wants? That is the risk he takes, in addition to playing one of his few remaining years for a team out of European football. If he wants to challenge for trophies - can he afford another year at Spurs?
Bayern's weakness - quite simple, they need a striker now to compete for a CL title, and the chances of signing Kane next summer on a free are much lower, when PL clubs can offer contracts.
The other thing that seems to be lost by a few people here - Would Kane go to Bayern? Of course he would. You don't need a direct statement from Kane to that effect. Teams don't negotiate transfer fees unless and until the buying club has reached an agreement in principle with the player. Bayern don't waste their time negotiating with Spurs unless they have received assurances from Kane's team that Kane would be open to signing with Bayern.
So, contrary to popular belief - all parties have something to gain here, and all parties have something to lose here. This is a complicated negotiation - not one where any party can set ultimatums. Because all of the parties have something to lose if the negotiations fail. Which is not to say that this deal is going to happen - but, if it happens it will be because all 3 parties want it to happen, more than they want it to fail.
Not only did Kane not cost us anything (significant) he actually made us money as we were able to sell Soldado(at a loss granted but that would have happened anyway). If Kane hadn’t come along we would have had to have bought a new striker and given our track record on buying strikers we would probably bought, and sold 2 or 3 by today at an overall cost in excess of a 100M. Add to this that if, in the unlikely scenario, he signed a new 5 year deal at the end of that deal he would leave/retire and we would need to sign a new striker.
So which ever way you look at the Kane saga we had or have to spend money on a new striker whether it was all those years ago, this season, next season or in 5 or 6 years time. For a club that is at the moment the 9th richest club in the world with a stadium that is only going to keep making us more money that should not be a daunting prospect.
The present scenario is straight forward; if Bayern want Kane, and they desperately need a top notch striker, then they need to stop playing games and make an acceptable offer. If they don’t we should just carry on like normal and see what the upcoming season brings.