This article was first published today in our bespoke Sports newsletter The Fixture. You can sign up in seconds to receive it straight to your inbox every weekday here.
THERE was a moment last week when the noise around Harry Kane's prospective move to Bayern Munich came to a lull. The Bayern chief executive Jan-Christian Dreesen and technical director Marco Neppe had just met Daniel Levy, the Tottenham chairman, in London to thrash out the terms of a prospective deal. What followed was virtual silence while those involved in the ongoing media circus attempted to fill in the blanks. Within a few days, however, Tottenham were agreeing transfers for defender Micky van de Ven at Wolfsburg, striker Alejo Veliz at Rosario Central and the Blackburn Rovers centre-back Ashley Phillips for a combined fee of around £50m.
For many Spurs fans this was proof that a deal had already been unofficially agreed with Bayern and that the London club was attempting to secure deals that would be exempt from the 'Kane tax'. Then came a deadline, imposed by Bayern, for Spurs to accept an offer of £86m, by midnight last Friday. It came and went unheeded. The following day came reports that Levy had flown to Florida for a family holiday with barely a cursory nod in Bayern's direction.
In the absence of tangible information there has been claim and counterclaim but it mostly feels as if there is a degree of guesswork being apportioned to the Kane transfer saga. Whether it was grandstanding by Levy or merely performative no-one knows but history may be instructive here.
There have been elements of the Gareth Bale to Real Madrid saga during the on-off Kane transfer. Levy has been cast as a hard-balling, no-nonsense negotiator who has won back a degree of goodwill from Tottenham fans who have become utterly exasperated by his decision-making in recent seasons, a series of mis-steps that has eroded faith in his ability to look after the club's best interests to an all-time low. Levy will point to the gleaming superdome and world-best training facilities he has helped build as evidence to contradict the naysayers, while his critics will list his efforts to join the European Super League, poor selection of managerial personnel and micro-management of the club as reasons why Tottenham are in danger of undoing all of their good work over the past decade and beyond. But on this transfer he has owned most of the narrative and so that's what makes developments earlier today more puzzling.
It does not make sense for Spurs to sell their captain and talisman so close to the start of the season, unless of course you view it simply in financial terms. Even Levy knows, however, that this is not a zero-sum game. Kane's exit – should he decide to accept Bayern's offer now that Tottenham have agreed a price for the England captain – this late in the day and right before the season starts will have an impact on the club's overall valuation, it also hampers efforts to return to the Champions League and it leaves Spurs with a chunk of money in the bank that will immediately drive up the valuation of players Ange Postecoglou may wish to sign.
Postecoglou is said to have made a positive impression on Kane and earlier today there were still suggestions that he remained undecided on whether he wanted to move to Germany. The 30-year-old's wife Kate is pregnant and her delivery date is imminent while he is said to be unimpressed by aspects of the way Bayern have acted over the transfer.
It may well be that the transfer is done and this is all an elaborate PR exercise dreamed up by Levy and Bayern to create the ultimate wins for both clubs but it also feels as if something weird is going on behind the scenes. It may also be that this has been leaked by the German side to put pressure on Kane who may now be wavering on making the move. Or, indeed, what we are now seeing play out may well have been ordained last week in that London meeting between Levy, Dressen and Neppe.
Mercifully, for everyone concerned, we will find out what's really going on sooner rather than later.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here