Harry Kane

[Mr Pink]

That clause is the most small time pathetic thing we could do.

It really is.

If we have a true vision for kicking on and to be ambitious we're not feeding off crumbs in the hope that we can have kane back down the line.

That's embarrassing.

Let's get top whack for him now and move the fuck on by building a team that completely reflects the managers vision - fast, free flowing football.

I'm honestly excited by the prospect of reinvesting the money.

Kane is a legend and is a big loss but all things come to an end.

This is a new era, let's embrace it fully and go for it under the new manager.

 

[mil1lion]

So was it embarrassing for Barca to try and get Messi back? Was it embarrassing for Utd to get Ronaldo back? No I don't buy it. I reckon Kane is world class in 5 years time and if we're able to sign him back then it will only benefit us. He's a club legend and if he's better than we have in a few years it would make sense. It has to be our choice though. Reality is we finished 8th last season and have no European football. Its difficult to keep a player like Kane in those circumstances. If he wanted to come back it will be because we've got back in contention again.

 

[JR1994]

Kolo Muani/Vlahovic and a top winger would be the minimum requirement to replace Kane. Fact is we still need 2x CBs probably a LB, CM and then a ST and winger whilst shifting 12+ players it’s starting to mount up and not look great.

 

[Rosco1984]

So was it embarrassing for Barca to try and get Messi back? Was it embarrassing for Utd to get Ronaldo back? No I don't buy it. I reckon Kane is world class in 5 years time and if we're able to sign him back then it will only benefit us. He's a club legend and if he's better than we have in a few years it would make sense. It has to be our choice though. Reality is we finished 8th last season and have no European football. Its difficult to keep a player like Kane in those circumstances. If he wanted to come back it will be because we've got back in contention again.

Let's be honest Ronaldo's second spell at United was a pretty embarrasing drama all round. Hat trick against us aside and even that didn't help them.

 

[jpascavitz]

Totally trying to convince myself we'd be OK without him

Top 5 scorers last season:

Kane - 30
Son - 10
Bentancur - 5
PEH - 4
Porro - 3
Total - 52

Top 5 players (w/o Kane) this season:

Son - 15
Muani (most freshly linked) - 10?
Richarlison - 5
Maddison - 5
Gallagher - 5
Kulusevski - 5
Solomon - 5
Total - 50

That's me being VERY pessimistic with the goal estimates as well. We were the fifth highest scoring side in the league last season despite finishing 8th. If we're able to have a by committee approach, more attacking system in place, and can strengthen the defense - are we really that worse off?

Kane in Ange's system excites me, but so does a full rebuild under a manager who wants to attack. IMO really not fair to Ange currently to deal with this cloud in preseason. I think it'd only get worse if we try to milk Kane's last season in hope to convince him to stay.

 

[yido_number1]

Let's be honest Ronaldo's second spell at United was a pretty embarrasing drama all round. Hat trick against us aside and even that didn't help them.

Similar with Bale. It was a nice bit of nostalgia but not that productive. I think Kane would still be at a high level in a couple of years and I wouldn't be against it.

 

[mil1lion]

Let's be honest Ronaldo's second spell at United was a pretty embarrasing drama all round. Hat trick against us aside and even that didn't help them.

It was but only because the manager didn't pick him. That's where you have to be sure it's the right pick for that time. Like Harry wanted Defoe and Keane back but Levy wanted Bale back. It's not embarrassing to get a club legend back if he fits you at the time.

 

[Styopa]

Having a buy-back clause doesn't do any harm; it's not like we have to exercise it. But I'm struggling to recall any really good second spells of top players. Most of them have either been just ok or pretty bad.

Maybe Eriksen could have been an exception, but despite having a shot at him, we couldn't or wouldn't bring him back. If Kane is on big money at Bayern and there is a hefty fee involved, I could see him moving to somewhere like Man U rather than us, irrespective of any buy-back clause.

 

[KingNick]

The clause that we should make Munich agree to is that if they sell within 5 years to another PL club then they have to pay us another big chunk of money (so big that it really won’t happen)

 

[HarryKane]

Your comparison just doesn’t stack up. When the JN situation came to an end, the decision to move on wasn’t pinned to Lewis or Levy personally. In regards to Kane, there are lots of ways the club could spin the fact that Kane is going that wouldn’t lay the blame at the feet of Lewis and / or Levy. If you think the club is briefing the press - and by extension telling fans - that this is a decision made by Lewis personally, you’re mad. Even if it were true, his name wouldn’t be anywhere near the story. This is the press doing what they do.

Who makes the decisions on who's going to be the next manager? Who decides that they aren't in contention and don't want to talk to them? The person who has the final say on these things is going to be Levy, who is part of the ownership (about 30% ownership in ENIC who own this club, so he has about 30% ownership of spurs). So if the club briefs the media and says that a manager isn't in contention and they have no plans on meeting him then that is the ownership briefing the media and making themselves look bad. Yes?

What do you want them to do, sign off every media communication with a nice "Levy xoxoxo" so you know it's been personally approved? Maybe a "Hi babes this is Levy, Julian isn't in contention for the job and isn't even being considered. Yours, Danny boy". Everything official coming out of the club, including media breifings, is going to be from the ownership because the ownership (Levy) wants that information out there as they are the ones brieifing the media. That is why they are briefing the media. If that briefing looks bad on them, like the JN briefing, then that reflects badly on the ownership because they're the ones making themselves look bad with said briefing.

I'm not sure what the difficulty is here, or if you think media briefings are somehow done without any knowledge or go ahead from Levy. But if they are briefing the media then it will definitely have gone through Levy because, yknow, the only place with the authority to do something like say that a person isn't and hasn't been in contention for the manager's position and let that "officially" get to the press is Levy. It's going to go through him one way or the other, so it is from him and so it is from the ownership. Or you're saying that people are making powerful statements like that without the club's permission or knowledge? That other people have the authority to do that without Levy's knowledge or go ahead? I don't know because there's clearly some disconnect in our thought processes here

 

[WiganSpur]

It really is.

If we have a true vision for kicking on and to be ambitious we're not feeding off crumbs in the hope that we can have kane back down the line.

That's embarrassing.

Let's get top whack for him now and move the fuck on by building a team that completely reflects the managers vision - fast, free flowing football.

I'm honestly excited by the prospect of reinvesting the money.

Kane is a legend and is a big loss but all things come to an end.

This is a new era, let's embrace it fully and go for it under the new manager.

Massive ifs but if we can get £100m and buy 3 more players with it (2 CBs, 1 top class winger or striker) then that's good pragmatic decision-making if we're being honest. I put the chances of him changing his mind and extending during the season at about 10% max, with no CBs in it's virtually zero. And if he leaves there's a pretty good chance of United, Liverpool, or even Newcastle if they keep progressing. It's also unlikely but wouldn't even rule out Chelsea either.

 

[KingNick]

That clause is the most small time pathetic thing we could do.

It’s also pretty impossible to negotiate successfully to make it work because of the fee involved, and Kane’s age.

levy would want it to be a tiny fee for what will be a 31+ year old. Whereas Munich would need reimbursing for the high fee they are paying now.

this clause would be harder to agree than the transfer fee now!

 

[WiganSpur]

The clause that we should make Munich agree to is that if they sell within 5 years to another PL club then they have to pay us another big chunk of money (so big that it really won’t happen)

Yeah, or some sort of watertight sell on clause to PL clubs that would pocket us 25% or so of the fee. Maybe i'd take £95m if we could get that chucked in.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

What I will say though, is what is the actual issue with having the option available to us? We’d be under no obligation to take the option, so surely it would be only beneficial?

The clause would be virtually worthless - which is why I prefer a sell-on clause for say 25% of any future sale price.

Let's say in 3 years Kane is worth £40M. In 3 years - who knows where we will be as a club. If Kane has no interest in returning, a buy-back clause won't help. Or, if we have no interest in Kane - because we have a young starting striker that we like - then a buy back clause is worth nothing.

But, if we have a sell-on clause - then we have options. We could get Kane at a 25% discount - if we want him back, and if he wants to come back. Or, we could get an extra £10m (assuming his value is £40m) in transfer funds.


Its not that the clause is "bad" - its just that there are better way to bring him back, if that is what we want, while giving us more flexibility to profit from a future Kane sale.

 

[Trent Crimm]

This will split opinions, but I’d be very very happy with this.
Remember that it’s a buyback option, so we have complete control.

Say he goes to Bayern, wins 5-6 domestic trophies and maybe 1 champions league if he’s lucky.

Then in 2-3 years time, he comes back just in time for the Ange Project to be coming to its peak.

He comes back with the ‘trophy monkey’ off his back and potentially finally fires us towards lifting a few trophies of our own.

All while he breaks the all-time premier league scoring record wearing a Spurs shirt.

And in the mean time while he’s gone, Ange gets the foundation’s to build the project with new and hungry players all from the money we would get off of Bayern.

I know this is all very much ‘best-case scenario’, but hey, there’s nothing wrong with dreaming!

I often wondered what fantasy world was. Now I know

 

[WiganSpur]

This will split opinions, but I’d be very very happy with this.
Remember that it’s a buyback option, so we have complete control.

Say he goes to Bayern, wins 5-6 domestic trophies and maybe 1 champions league if he’s lucky.

Then in 2-3 years time, he comes back just in time for the Ange Project to be coming to its peak.

He comes back with the ‘trophy monkey’ off his back and potentially finally fires us towards lifting a few trophies of our own.

All while he breaks the all-time premier league scoring record wearing a Spurs shirt.

And in the mean time while he’s gone, Ange gets the foundation’s to build the project with new and hungry players all from the money we would get off of Bayern.

I know this is all very much ‘best-case scenario’, but hey, there’s nothing wrong with dreaming!

A sell on clause that we can use to bring the price down for us compared to other teams would be more flexible. Release clause or not, if he doesn't want to return to Spurs then the buy back clause is worthless. If he wants to go elsewhere, or we don't need/want him back, then we still profit.

 

[rossdapep]

I don't think it's the number of goals Kane scores that is the issue in replacing.

You can always improve the frontline and spread the goals across a more fluid front 3.

The issue is the kind of goals Kane scores. He literally scores every kind of goal and that makes him irreplaceable.

If we were to continue playing the same way under conte, foe example, then Son and Richarlison are not going to score as many as Kane does in the situations he gets into.

But if you change the way you play and have goals coming from all over (midfielders making late runs, FBs playing on the shoulder) then you will create more chances thus score more.

You just won't have a player on the pitch in which you can say is guaranteed to score. They would need 2-3 chances per goal.

 

[Styopa]

It’s also pretty impossible to negotiate successfully to make it work because of the fee involved, and Kane’s age.

levy would want it to be a tiny fee for what will be a 31+ year old. Whereas Munich would need reimbursing for the high fee they are paying now.

this clause would be harder to agree than the transfer fee now!

Maybe a first-refusal thing is more likely. Like Bayern have to notify us when they receive a bid for Kane, and we have 24 hours to match it before they can accept the other team's offer. Something like that.

But as you say, it's highly unlikely that Levy will want to pay forty or fifty million plus a huge salary to bring him back in two or three years. Probably the only way it happens is if he comes back on a free or loan like Bale.

 

[Styopa]

The clause would be virtually worthless - which is why I prefer a sell-on clause for say 25% of any future sale price.

Let's say in 3 years Kane is worth £40M. In 3 years - who knows where we will be as a club. If Kane has no interest in returning, a buy-back clause won't help. Or, if we have no interest in Kane - because we have a young starting striker that we like - then a buy back clause is worth nothing.

But, if we have a sell-on clause - then we have options. We could get Kane at a 25% discount - if we want him back, and if he wants to come back. Or, we could get an extra £10m (assuming his value is £40m) in transfer funds.


Its not that the clause is "bad" - its just that there are better way to bring him back, if that is what we want, while giving us more flexibility to profit from a future Kane sale.

This is more realistic, although 25% of forty million doesn't get you far these days. It buys you maybe a Winks or Sanchez in today's money- and probably less in three years. It's not bad to have as part of the deal, but it doesn't make the deal much more attractive apart from as a kind of insurance in the event Kane is sold by Bayern within a year or two.

 

[TheHodFather]

How much would Kane actually be worth a few years down the line anyway? I think it really depends on what sort of wages he'd be looking for. Once players on big wages get into their (mid-ish) thirties isn't it generally a case of fees being pretty small to offset the size of the contract the player wants? Aside from Juventus spending big on a 33-year old Ronaldo, I'm struggling to think of a player of that sort of age going for a large fee in recent years. (Happy to be corrected if anyone can think of other examples...)