Tottenham have many problems to solve this summer,
but chief among them is what to do with Harry Kane.
The club’s record goalscorer has just twelve months left on his
contract and is not close to signing an extension.
So, should Spurs cash-in on Kane now or risk losing him for free in a year’s time?
Let’s start with the case for selling Kane, because it’s simpler.
Obviously, for Tottenham to lose a player of his calibre for free would be a bitter blow.
As context, it’s also worth noting that Spurs have quietly become ineffective at selling
players over recent seasons. Kyle Walker was sold for £50m in the summer of 2019,
Kieran Trippier left two years later for nearly £30m but, since then,
the departures have been underwhelming and have rarely allowed reinvestment opportunities.
In fact, since the 2019 Champions League final, Tottenham have only sold €150m worth of players,
signing an estimated €570m worth of new players across the same period.
Harry Kane will turn 30 in July of 2023 and so his age, combined with that contract situation,
mean that the apex of his value has been and gone. And yet he remains both a rare player
and statistically within his prime; given the types of clubs that would be interested,
it’s not unreasonable to think that Daniel Levy would no let Kane leave for less than
£100m. It’s unclear whether or not another team would pay that,
but it’s fair to say that it probably wouldn’t make sense for Spurs to sell him for less.
If that happened, it would be the biggest sale in the club’s history, bigger even than the fee
that took Gareth Bale to Real Madrid, and allowing the opportunity for it to go by,
given the difficulties of recent years – including the pandemic, the debt associated
with the new stadium construction, and the growing likelihood of missing out on
Champions League revenue in 2023-24 – would be hard to justify. That’s especially true given
the difficulties Spurs have had in recent windows in trying to sell unwanted members of their squad.
In addition to which, Spurs have several areas of weakness within their starting
eleven. £100m would go a long way to funding the purchase of a new left-sided centre-back,
goalkeeper, and creative midfielder.
Potentially, rather than spreading those upgrades across several years,
Kane’s sale would give Tottenham the chance to competing that rebuild within a single window.
Perhaps Richarlison showed during the World Cup that he can be a highly effective No.9?
They’re not similar players, but the Brazilian is already at the club and could be emblematic
of a different attacking direction with the need for a direct replacement.
Whatever the pros of selling Kane, however, the list of cons is at least equally long.
Yes, Richarlison could herald a different attacking direction,
but the most goals he’s ever scored in a season is 13. In six of his nine full seasons, Kane has
scored more than 20 and never fewer than 17. It would be a stretch to replace one with the other.
It’s also worth questioning the efficiency with which Tottenham
would be able to reinvest. The marketplace would be well-aware of what Spurs would
have to spend, making negotiating for replacements particularly difficult.
In addition to which, it’s currently uncertain who would lead that recruitment.
Former Manager Director of Football, Fabio Paratici, resigned his position in late
April and so, in addition to appointing a new head-coach, welcoming a new CEO in Scott Munn,
and identifying transfer targets, Tottenham will also be looking to find Paratici’s replacement.
With so much upheaval, it hardly seems the time to conduct this sale or a point
in Tottenham’s history at which they’re best-equipped to plan something which
promises to be so divisive. Chairman Daniel Levy is under heavy criticism from the club’s
supporters as it is. Politically, selling Kane would be an extremely dangerous move.
Levy, or whomever would be tasked with filling the hole Kane would
leave – would also find themselves in a weak position in the market to replace him.
Tottenham won’t be offering Champions League football in 2023-2. Players like Victor Osimhen,
Romelu Lukaku and Lautaro Martinez would have better options in the summer. Tammy
Abraham is a former Chelsea player who would also command a vast fee.
More modest and achievable options might include Sevilla’s Youssef En-Nesyri or
RB Leipzig’s Andre Silva, but neither is a perfect fit for the current attacking
system. Marcus Thuram’s contract is due to expire at the end of the 2022-23 season and
he’s certainly talented, but might really be more of a wide forward.
Being the player to replace Kane in the Tottenham team is a near-impossible task, though. More so
for a player who comes from a slightly lower level of the game and with a narrower ability
range. That same problem would apply should Spurs opt for a younger player – a project,
so to speak – who would have to cope with the inhibiting pressure of replacing an icon.
In addition to which, the market in the summer of 2023 seems to offer few obvious options.
Lille’s Jonathan David seems likely to move to superclub in the summer of 2023 and for a very
large fee. Benjamin Sesko has already agreed a transfer to RB Leipzig, and while it’s largely
expected that Randal Kolo Muani will leave Eintracht Frankfurt in the upcoming window,
that’s not likely to be for less than €100m and for wages that Spurs will find it hard to match.
Exciting, high potential types available for small fees are
currently scarce. Particularly for wealthy Premier League clubs.
Perhaps, then, the question isn’t really whether Tottenham should sell Kane,
but whether the advantages of doing so are only theoretical.
For instance, the compensation for letting him leave may well be a big fee,
but that’s only a supporting argument if the club is well-equipped to spend the
money effectively. Using a big sale to rebuild a team is a common rationale, but it requires
a high-performing recruiting department that Spurs don’t seem to have currently.
It’s a question without a correct answer, but it could be argued that Tottenham best
bet is to allow Kane’s contract to run down, in the hope that his goals and
quality allow them to succession plan from a stronger base in a year’s time.
Even if it is with the result of losing him for free.