Football finance expert Kieran Maguire believes Daniel Levy will force Harry Kane to take a step back with his demands regarding a new contract at Tottenham.
The England captain had been seeking an exit from North London over the summer with Manchester City the most likely destination.
Pep Guardiola’s side were stifled by Spurs chairman Daniel Levy, who was only holding out for a £160 million fee if a transfer was to happen.
A transfer ultimately never materialised and as such, reports quickly emerged that the 28-year-old wanted a fresh £400,000 deal from Spurs if he was to sign a new contract, with his camp also keen to add a release clause to give him an easy out in future.
The major caveat, though, is Spurs chief Levy has typically avoided inserting such clauses into contracts in the past, to give himself and the club leverage during potential negotiations.
That stance has interested the view of Maguire, who claims Levy will not even want to consider entertain losing the upper hand in future talks for Kane.
he told Football Insider: “It puts a limit on how much you can make from a single transaction. There is a lot of logic, from the player’s perspective, in using it as a negotiation ploy.
“What happens if you have a player coming through who has a £30m release clause, whose market value is now £60m? A release clause is always in favour of the player and never in the club. Daniel Levy knows this. You can understand him taking that approach.
“He has been able to ensure Kane has stayed at Spurs this season precisely because he didn’t have a release clause. You compare that to Jack Grealish, where the release clause was £100m. I can’t see Levy sanctioning that.
“When there are big clubs sniffing around, they are happy to trigger those clauses. So it acts as insurance for Spurs not to have release clauses.”
Spurs Web Opinion
Although Levy divides a lot of opinion, he is a shrewd businessman when dealing with potential outgoings. He likely knew Kane would become a superstar when he agreed a new long-term contract in 2017 and made sure not to add a release clause which would have likely seen him leave for a reduced value. You feel as if he has little interest to change his stance on this occasion.
Have something to tell us about this article?