Harry Kane MBE

[Glenda's Legs]

Easy enough contract stipulation, you get him now, he can't play first game of season.

I thought that wasn't allowed? Integrity of the competition and all that (ignoring the irony of anything to do with Emirates Marketing Project and integrity).
More likely he'll be carrying a bit of a pre-season 'knock'. Or perhaps more transparently that he's been dropped whilst transfer matters are finalised.

 

[MKSpur]

I thought that wasn't allowed? Integrity of the competition and all that (ignoring the irony of anything to do with Emirates Marketing Project and integrity).
More likely he'll be carrying a bit of a pre-season 'knock'. Or perhaps more transparently that he's been dropped whilst transfer matters are finalised.

Maybe one of those Gentleman’s agreements Levy likes and never reneges on?

 

[Raziel]

Not sure that’s legal is it? Think we’d have to only confirm the transfer after the game or something?

but pretty sure you can’t sell a player and say he can’t play the first game against us.

Contract date starts the day after first game .. ways it can be done (would be different from saying random game in middle of season)

 

[Glenda's Legs]

Contract date starts the day after first game .. ways it can be done (would be different from saying random game in middle of season)

That might be fine, as technically he would still be our player but then the contracts may as well be inked after the game. It would avoid any PL scrutiny then as well when the contract and transfer paperwork is submitted.
There are ways around it of course. My post was that I don't want everything completed beforehand so that he could line up for them.

 

[milo]

Spurs will be desperate for it not to leak out that we'll soon have £160m in our pockets as we're trying to partake in a rebuild. I suspect Emirates Marketing Project have been requested to get on board with that and have agreed to it (Emirates Marketing Project are generally very good at keeping things in house anyway).

Offering over £20m + Lamela for Gil, which is a non priority position right now gave a huge indication that we were about to cash in on a big asset. That coupled with a £40m bid for Romero tells us it is likely to be our biggest asset.

If £160m is the price then Levy has done very well so fair play to him. As I said just now and earlier I thought Levy would cave in and sell at about £120m.

Harry has given us the best years of his career. As a club we had a chance of pushing on and cementing ourselves amongst the real top clubs but a mixture of poor decisions from the top and huge overspend on the stadium put paid to that for the time being. Harry was very professional last season after asking to leave and being asked to give another year, that was kept out of the press and nobody can say that the player didn't then put it all in on the pitch for us last season.

The only thing that I am puzzled about is why this story has come out in the press now. One thing is clear though, it hasn't been leaked by Spurs and Levy, so the 'Levy pulling a blinder' rhetoric is wide of the mark. This has absolutely been leaked from Kane's camp (that is clear from the journalist who broke the story). Levy has pulled a blinder though if it is true that he has achieved £160m for Kane in this market.

I don't think that there is anything in this story. If there was anything in it, it would've come from a football journo not a showbiz one. Charlie Kane is just trying to negotiate a fee through the papers.

With regards to Kane's value and the market. City are owned by a country and are not impacted by Covid. £160m is getting closer to Kane's value but we shouldn't be offering them any discounts. To consider selling this summer we should be holding out for a world record fee and it should be in cash. City cast offs are no use to us.

 

[Raziel]

I don't think that there is anything in this story. If there was anything in it, it would've come from a football journo not a showbiz one. Charlie Kane is just trying to negotiate a fee through the papers.

With regards to Kane's value and the market. City are owned by a country and are not impacted by Covid. £160m is getting closer to Kane's value but we shouldn't be offering them any discounts. To consider selling this summer we should be holding out for a world record fee and it should be in cash. City cast offs are no use to us.

I think it's always been cash.

As others have said, I think this is the club/Levy being smart, this is the same as the Toby/Eriksen situation, you want to leave (we are offering you every chance to stay)? = ok, have a club come in with a fair offer, £160M is fair, it's nothing like the top end of what Kane would be worth in a normal market but it's still a price the club could leverage for rebuild.

It's now a fudging reality check for Kane and his brother, you have had your head turned by a slave state that isn't willing to pay the money that much lesser players have gone for, how much do they really want you again?

 

[superspurs]

I thought that wasn't allowed? Integrity of the competition and all that (ignoring the irony of anything to do with Emirates Marketing Project and integrity).
More likely he'll be carrying a bit of a pre-season 'knock'. Or perhaps more transparently that he's been dropped whilst transfer matters are finalised.

Didn't West Brom and West Ham get in trouble for doing this with Snodgrass?

 

[milo]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1418522685986979841

 

[milo]

I think it's always been cash.

As others have said, I think this is the club/Levy being smart, this is the same as the Toby/Eriksen situation, you want to leave (we are offering you every chance to stay)? = ok, have a club come in with a fair offer, £160M is fair, it's nothing like the top end of what Kane would be worth in a normal market but it's still a price the club could leverage for rebuild.

It's now a fudging reality check for Kane and his brother, you have had your head turned by a slave state that isn't willing to pay the money that much lesser players have gone for, how much do they really want you again?

City's £100m offer earlier in the summer included players.

 

[milo]

"Emirates Marketing Project have made it plain that talk they have agreed a £160million deal for Tottenham striker Harry Kane is nonsense.

And club sources say that the Blues will NEVER pay that kind of sum for a player - a fee that would have doubled their current record and lumped £30million on top."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1418521984846209028

 

[JerusalemMan]

"Emirates Marketing Project have made it plain that talk they have agreed a £160million deal for Tottenham striker Harry Kane is nonsense.

And club sources say that the Blues will NEVER pay that kind of sum for a player - a fee that would have doubled their current record and lumped £30million on top."

And that's how much they want him.
Enough to put whispers in the press and facilitate rumours but not enough to pay a decent amount for the best striker in the league.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Levy himself has said covid cost us £200m in lost revenue. That has been covered by the £250m long term loan. (The boe loan is moot as it was to cover the covid costs and has been paid back.)
As for installments. The players we buy will be paid for in installments.

Yes.... all players we buy (and sell) will be paid for in instalments. However that means we still need to pay for transfers from 2019 and 2020.

So we started with a low cash position due to the stadium.
Made a loss of £63m in 2020.
Are likely to make a loss of more than £100m in 2021. (no CL, no extra events at the stadium, lower PL prize money, and (as good as) zero football matches at the stadium)
Borrowed (another) £250m to add to our huge debt pile.
Monies due for 2019 transfers? £30m?
Monies due to 2020 transfers? £25m?
Doesn't leave much does it? Especially when you consider that Levy is unlikely to completely exhaust our cash reserves in case we end up in further lockdowns.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Easy enough contract stipulation, you get him now, he can't play first game of season.

I think that is against PL rules. Counts as 'third party ownership' and would be a probable points deduction.

 

[Finney Is Back]

I think it's always been cash.

As others have said, I think this is the club/Levy being smart, this is the same as the Toby/Eriksen situation, you want to leave (we are offering you every chance to stay)? = ok, have a club come in with a fair offer, £160M is fair, it's nothing like the top end of what Kane would be worth in a normal market but it's still a price the club could leverage for rebuild.

It's now a fudging reality check for Kane and his brother, you have had your head turned by a slave state that isn't willing to pay the money that much lesser players have gone for, how much do they really want you again?

This hasn't come from the club mate. That would've been through a sports journalist. The source of this makes it clear to all that this is from Harry's camp not THFC's (it does the club no favours for other clubs to think we'll soon have £160m to spend).

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

It’s really fortunate for us that Kane was daft enough to entrust management to a relative incompetent, as it were.

Charlie’s hamfisted PR strategy has reassured clubs selling to us that we aren’t in line for any windfalls, and reassured players considering Spurs that they will be working with a world-class player.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I don't think that there is anything in this story. If there was anything in it, it would've come from a football journo not a showbiz one. Charlie Kane is just trying to negotiate a fee through the papers.

With regards to Kane's value and the market. City are owned by a country and are not impacted by Covid. £160m is getting closer to Kane's value but we shouldn't be offering them any discounts. To consider selling this summer we should be holding out for a world record fee and it should be in cash. City cast offs are no use to us.

I disagree
As @Finney Is Back has said it’s come via someone the Kane’s know. She was at Charlie’s wedding if the rumours are true
But as I’ve also said it’s Levy’s way of calling city’s/Harry’s bluff
Harry you can go for £160m…. Sort that deal out with city.
City want Kane but don’t want to pay
Kane is now somewhere in the middle

 

[Lilbaz]

Yes.... all players we buy (and sell) will be paid for in instalments. However that means we still need to pay for transfers from 2019 and 2020.

So we started with a low cash position due to the stadium.
Made a loss of £63m in 2020.
Are likely to make a loss of more than £100m in 2021. (no CL, no extra events at the stadium, lower PL prize money, and (as good as) zero football matches at the stadium)
Borrowed (another) £250m to add to our huge debt pile.
Monies due for 2019 transfers? £30m?
Monies due to 2020 transfers? £25m?
Doesn't leave much does it? Especially when you consider that Levy is unlikely to completely exhaust our cash reserves in case we end up in further lockdowns.

Our transfer spending the summer before covid is what levy thought we could afford. Which was £75m. Forget that it is in installments as any player we buy now will be installments.
So £75m is the baseline of what we think we can afford in the transfer market with the income from the new stadium.

So £75m normal budget without covid.
Covid costs the club £200m from lost revenue (according to levy himself, this summer).
+£175m from the boe loan (which could not be spent on transfers).
+£250m loan (which can be spent on transfers)
-£175 to pay back the boe loan.

That leaves us £125m in hand and a debt of £250m that has to be paid back over the 20-30 years.

Now i'm not saying that we have a budget of £125m for players. But spending £60m is feasable and doesn't require the sale of kane.

 

[AdamB]

Things seem to be moving quicker in terms of negotiations with Paratici being here, not using Levy’s old school Gap Partnership techniques. I have faith that if Kane goes, the money will be reinvested better than when Bale left and, weirdly, actually feel quite optimistic about things. To me, we’ve been over-reliant on Kane for too long now and creating a stronger team might see us set up to challenge more consistently. You never know…

Kind of where I've been on this all along. £50m gets you a decent 20-23 year old who is a full international with lots of potential and some experience in a major league.

Swap Harry for 3 of those, say a CF, RW and a CB, in addition to other changes which we'll make, and we might be stronger as a team

[edit: not that I am advocating selling him....just that its not the end of the world if we were to for £150m+]

 

[Glenda's Legs]

Didn't West Brom and West Ham get in trouble for doing this with Snodgrass?

More West Brom I think. I don't recall that anything ever came of it in the end, probably because it was hearsay rather than anything in writing. I think it was Allardyce who said there was an agreement not to play Snodgrass.

 

[SpurMeUp]

So which is it?

1# We've been here before, hush the deal up and buy players, Bale sale mark II.

2# We are intent on keeping Kane for another season.

Both are possible. The playbook seems remarkably similar to Bale-sale. However, you'd expect us to have actually signed some players by now, and be linked with forwards. Ings is about the only one so far. And we haven't actually signed anyone other than a keeper. Regardless of Kane we need a CB, so CB rumours make sense too. We'd be buying one if Kane stayed.

So hard to call this one. Only a few people know. But, it does seem odd that someone would let slip to a journalist at a wedding. With all the details of the deal. So it looks like a silly season tabloid story to fill pages. There isn't any benefit to Kane's people to release the story (and who'd tell a journalist by accident) plus Levy would have put in some clauses (with penalities?) about keeping things schtum.