Harry Kane not looking to leave this summer and will only go if club want to sell him

[mawspurs]

Tottenham Hotspur talisman Harry Kane doesn't plan to push for an exit from the club this summer, according to UK media reports. Striker’s view is that he is a Spurs player and will not push for an exit now as he enters last year of his deal.

Kane is now in the last final year of a six-year deal and was back in training with the club midweek. holding positive talks with new head coach Ange Postecoglou as there is speculation about his future, with Bayern Munich a concrete suitor but any advances have been rebuffed by Spurs so far.

Source: Independent.ie

 

[N17-77]

I don't see where this narrative comes from, ref we have to sell Kane to afford 2 CBs.























Logically, we have to sell some players as we currently have 31 senior players for a 25man squad. That would mean ideally selling/loaning/releasing our choice of players (Lloris, Whiteman, Rodon, Tanganga, Sanchez, and probably White, Sessegnon etc.), but otherwise those where there's a good deal (maybe Højbjerg, Lo Celso etc).

We won't buy 2 senior CBs when we have to shift so many other senior players. I expect we'll buy one through necessity. And 2 if we shift a lot of other players.

Don't think this relates to Kane coming or going. A couple of 30-50m CBs, amortised over 4 or 5 years is absolutely possible givne our turnover.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

I don't see where this narrative comes from, ref we have to sell Kane to afford 2 CBs.

Logically, we have to sell some players as we currently have 31 senior players for a 25man squad. That would mean ideally selling/loaning/releasing our choice of players (Lloris, Whiteman, Rodon, Tanganga, Sanchez, and probably White, Sessegnon etc.), but otherwise those where there's a good deal (maybe Højbjerg, Lo Celso etc).

We won't buy 2 senior CBs when we have to shift so many other senior players. I expect we'll buy one through necessity. And 2 if we shift a lot of other players.

Don't think this relates to Kane coming or going. A couple of 30-50m CBs, amortised over 4 or 5 years is absolutely possible givne our turnover.

I agree that the need to move on a few players is more likely to be holding up CB signings than the Kane situation is.
We're switching from a system that needs three CBs to a system that needs two CBs, so our squad now needs only 4-5 CBs instead of 6-7 CBs. Lenglet is already off the wage bill. Selling Tanganga, Rodon & Sanchez should cover the cost of a £30m CB (e.g. VDV), which would leave us with VDV + Romero + Dier + Davies. The squad would be three players lighter and our starting XI would be stronger, without adding any net spend.
A fifth CB (and the extra £20m for Tapsoba instead of VDV) could be funded by the sale of surplus fullbacks/wingbacks (Reguilon & Spence?) and a CM (Ndombele / Hojbjerg?). This would reduce the squad by another two senior players, without adding any net spend.
The challenge is finding new clubs that are willing to pay and that the outgoing player wants to join. I suspect a few of our surplus players are setting their expectations too high and that this is more of a barrier to their sales than Levy's asking prices (I'm not suggesting Sanchez should accept a move to Russia though!).

£100m net spend is probably in the ballpark of what a club of our stature / turnover should be spending each year to strengthen / maintain a competitive squad.
A combination of amortisation (FFP) and transfer fee instalments / add-ons (cashflow) allows for peaks and troughs in our transfer spending, but the club needs to manage those peaks and troughs fairly stringently. Amortised fees and instalments / add-ons get stacked up over multiple windows.
With 5-year amortisation of an average £100m net spend would equate to an actual £100m annual expense, as there would permanently be £20m for each of the past 5 years, not just the £20m from the most recent window. If £100m annual net spend is what we can afford, we could spend £50m one year and £150m another without any FFP issues, but e amortisation of a £500m net spend from one window over 5 years doesn't equate to a £100m net spend on the books - it adds another £100m on top of whatever we need to amortise for other windows .

As much as people don't like it, the permanent deals for Porro & Kulusevski have been included in this year's budget - that's when fees were paid and when the amortisation started. We're therefore currently at circa £105m net spend this summer (Maddison, Porro, Kulu & Vicario signed at cost, with only a small fee for Winks to offset this so far).
Our net spend last summer was circa £120m, so if we consider the Porro & Kulusevski fees to belong in last year's accounts, that equates to a £180m spend for last season and we would probably need to spend less this year to compensate for that...doesn't really help.

If we do sell Kane for circa £100m, that could fund 2-3 additional quality signings, but we'd still have the issue of squad size and wages.

TL;DR
I agree that two decent CBs is achievable without selling Kane, but only if we offload players (which we still need to do if we sell Kane).

 

[olliec]

I wouldn’t be surprised if this was agreed weeks ago like with Bale, but only between Levy, Kane and Bayern. Makes sense as we have quite a few influx of players. Wouldn’t be surprised if that was the Kane money.