Should Tottenham sell Harry Kane to fund rebuild under a new manager?

Spurs face constructing a squad for yet another new boss but is it time for the England captain to seek a new club? The Independent’s sports desk discuss the summer dilemma in north London

Harry Kane’s future will once more be on the agenda in the summer, with Tottenham Hotspur falling short in all their major objectives for this season and churning through managers like other clubs make subs.

There remains pressure on Daniel Levy too, while any incoming boss will doubtless - yet again - want to undertake something of a rebuild of the playing squad to suit his formation and style.

It brings the obvious question - and particularly ahead of a clash against Manchester United who have been linked with the England skipper for so long - should Kane finally be moving on from north London?

The Independent’s sports desk came together to offer viewpoints on both the club and the striker, as to whether he should stay or go, for what fee and what might ultimately happen in the off-season.

Is it in Spurs’ best interests to allow Kane to leave – and what fee would be reasonable?

Miguel Delaney: There has long been a wider argument that there might actually have been some logic to selling. Plenty of great football eras - from England to Italy to Spain - have been based on a club selling a star and using that money to rebuild. Even at Spurs, for all the criticism the “Gareth Bale money” got at the start, there is some argument it offered the basis of Mauricio Pochettino's era. It was how they got Christian Eriksen. No club should ever be hung up on a single player. As regards now, they're in a much more difficult position, as Kane can go for free next summer. They won't have Champions League money. They're engulfed by uncertainty. If they can't get Kane to sign a new contract, which seems unlikely, it feels the logical move is to sell for around £80m.

Richard Jolly: It probably depends on the next manager and the strategy, if indeed there is one. Tottenham do need to rebuild and they risk losing Kane for nothing. In reality, one more year of him might get them back in the Champions League but, unless they think he is likely to sign an extended deal, could also get them nothing of any great value. But he is far and away their best player, as his valiant efforts this season have shown. He has carried them this year. So to take him out of the team makes them immediately worse, even if it could give Richarlison a chance. There is a difference between what fee would be reasonable and what fee Daniel Levy wants. For a player turning 30, with one year left on his contract, anything over £50 million would look extortionate. It is less than Spurs could have got for Kane in the past but they aren't in the strongest bargaining position.

Jack Rathborn: The fans would understand the club and player’s decision if it’s a move abroad, ideally. A fee of anything beyond £70-80m would represent decent value when you consider he will be 30 before the start of next season and Raheem Sterling commanded a £47.5m fee from Chelsea only last summer with a year remaining on his deal at the Etihad.

Karl Matchett: It would be if they can sell overseas, ideally. Naturally, selling Kane domestically is only going to strengthen a rival, even if it does let Tottenham rebuild somewhat more. £70m would be a good fee given his age and contract, and the biggest reason for Spurs to sell is that he dictates they play a certain way from the front - several managers have had difficulty putting a team around him which can be competitive but without being a typically high-pressing one. Maybe it’s time to just start afresh, even in attack.

Alex Pattle: I agree that £80m would be an appropriate fee for Kane at this point, and that Spurs must ensure they’re able to sell him to a club outside of the Premier League. The embarrassment they’re experiencing right now would only be exacerbated by watching him thrive with a rival club.

Lawrence Ostlere: Spurs should do everything in their power to persuade Kane to stay. He is their best player, their top goalscorer and their leader on the field, and that is an expensive list of traits to replace. Chain him down and don’t let him go.

Kieran Jackson: Absolutely not. It’s a crossroads for Tottenham at the moment, given a season of immense struggle which could have been much worse if their leading talisman wasn’t firing on all cylinders. It will depend, naturally, on who the new manager is and their preferred style of play but losing Kane - especially to a domestic rival - would be a catastrophic blow. Granted, it will have to be a hell of a pitch to persuade him to extend his contract.

What would add more to Kane’s legacy: the Premier League goalscoring record or trophies?

(Getty Images)

MD: Trophies. Records are, in most cases, surpassed. Medals last. It would be remarkable if a player of Kane's talent finished his career without a trophy, and feel a waste.

RJ: The Premier League goalscoring record. Some 292 players have got a medal for winning the Premier League, some of them forgettable or after making a negligible contribution. Only one player - Alan Shearer - has scored the most goals in the division's history. Like Steven Gerrard, Kane will be a Premier League great, albeit possibly a slightly unfulfilled one, if he never wins the division.

JR: Trophies. Kane and Alan Shearer are different types of strikers and those who lean towards the Tottenham man can make their case already. A trophy with Spurs, similar to Francesco Totti’s modest haul compared to his talent at Roma, would be extra special, but Daniel Levy has had ample opportunity to convince Kane he can hire a coach and supporting cast to complement him, how many more chances?

KM: Trophies, it’s an easy call. Of course he could have both if he moves within the English top flight, but that isn’t going to be something Spurs allow happen for anything other than an outrageous sum, you feel.

AP: Trophies. If he were to fall short of the goalscoring record but pick up even one Premier League winner’s medal, for example, his legacy would be greater than if he were to break the record without winning silverware. If he fails to win a trophy of any kind – but particularly the league – fans of rival teams will always count it against him. That feels unfair; his consistent excellence over the years deserves to result in at least one major trophy.

LO: The goals record is nice but it is quite a parochial thing; do fans across Europe and the rest of the world know Alan Shearer’s tally? Do they care? Trophies are the one thing missing from Kane’s career that would elevate his legacy and cement him as one of Europe’s great players.

KJ: Forget trophies for now, simply a trophy. Singular. It’s a travesty that Spurs have not won any silverware in a period where Kane has netted at least 24 goals in nine consecutive seasons. He could not have done much more. As he turns 30 this summer, he must think about team honours as opposed to individual accolades. The Premier League goalscoring record without any trophies would not be a befitting legacy.

Should Kane opt out if given the chance – and which team would he best fit?

(Getty Images)

MD: Yes. He would fit anyone looking for a No9, which is a lot of major teams right now, including Chelsea, Manchester United and Bayern Munich.

RJ: I like the idea of players remaining loyal to one club for as long as possible. Breaking Jimmy Greaves' Tottenham goalscoring record was a huge feat and, should he stay at Spurs, Kane could extend his total to 400, which might forever remain unbeatable. But as a player, he would suit Manchester United, Bayern Munich and Chelsea (though they almost certainly couldn't afford him).

JR: Kane feels like he is still in his second prime after evolving into a sensational, playmaking goalscorer. Manchester United feels like the perfect stage for a player of his calibre and importantly his style would marry up nicely with Marcus Rashford off the left. However, the actual answer in what is a completely unrealistic scenario, given the animosity between the clubs, is Chelsea. Naturally, his former boss Mauricio Pochettino would make for a perfect transition.

KM: Depends how serious he is about success. He can be a club legend of course if he remains, top scorer and record breaker and all the rest, but Spurs are still years away from competing for honours even if they do get this next appointment finally right. As for where he’d fit, Man United is an obvious one but let him spearhead a dominant side who play high upfield without needing him to press relentlessly - Bayern, PSG come to mind - and he would create and score an absolute bundle. At a lower-tier club than those two behemoths, it’s hard to imagine any Italian or Spanish club not called Real Madrid having the funds for him, and Los Blancos don’t need him.

AP: He continues to give Spurs more than the club can give him back. At this point, I’d argue he would be justified in trying to force a move, and Man United might be at the right stage under Erik ten Hag for Kane to slot in. Bayern would be a safer bet for him, while Chelsea wouldn’t be the worst option if Pochettino were in place by then.

LO: While I think Spurs should try to keep hold of Kane, I also think he should do his utmost to leave. There is nothing left to achieve, and the only thing he can lose is a little love from Tottenham fans – perhaps there will be no statue outside the ground if he goes, but careers are short and he should enjoy a new challenge while he still can. Manchester United and Bayern Munich would both benefit from Kane’s complete attacking play, and both sides have pace in wide areas to fill the Son Heung-Min role running on to Kane’s inch-perfect through-balls. Chelsea is the wildcard pick, and Pochettino would no doubt want Kane in his team – but would Kane risk his Spurs reputation with a move across London? Manchester United, for me.

KJ: This is the decision which will define his club career. Stay at Tottenham: become a club legend, perhaps their undisputed best-ever player and record-breaker. Yet, he’d run the risk of the unfathomable: a trophyless career. Or leave and - simply by notion of starting anew at a big club - increase your chances of breaking that trophy duck. Before this season, I’d have said stay - winning one trophy with your club will mean far more than, say, three trophies at Manchester United, PSG or Bayern Munich. But such is Spurs’ plight right now, he’s earned the right I believe to seek a move elsewhere. It’s now or never, too. For me, United seems like the most obvious best-fit.

Where is Kane playing on the opening day of 2023/24?

(Getty Images)

MD: Tottenham Hotspur.

JR: Spurs. United may test Spurs’ resolve with a bid or two, but ultimately it feels like Kane will prefer not to rock the boat and instead keep his options open ahead of an opportunity to move as a free agent in 2024. Levy has made a statement in the past with the appointment of Antonio Conte and a manager of Julian Nagelsmann’s stature would at least provoke intrigue from Kane.

RJ: Probably Tottenham. Daniel Levy might price him out of a move.

KM: Up front for Spurs.

AP: Tottenham Hotspur.

LO: Kane wants to leave Tottenham. Kane wants to earn the Premier League goals record. Kane wants to win trophies. With these things in mind, and given Manchester City don’t need him, Chelsea and Manchester United feel like the most obvious destinations. But then we have been here before and these deals are notoriously tricky to get done: I’m plumping for one more valedictory season at Spurs.

KJ: Tottenham. Much like 2021, Kane will probably push for a move but Levy is stubborn - and will force his main man to stay. An inspiring manager choice will make that easier to swallow.