Spurs: 'To suggest we’d be better off without Kane is utterly ludicrous.'

After weeks of speculation, Harry Kane confirmed he will be staying at Tottenham this summer saying that he is “100% focused on helping the team achieve success.”

But with Spurs top of the Premier League following a trio of wins from their opening three fixtures, is there an argument that they are actually better off without him?

Kane had been pushing for a switch to City for months and had initially hoped to seal the deal before Euro 2020.

But player and club made little progress, mainly thanks to the determination of Spurs’ chairman, Daniel Levy, to get the right price for his star player.

Spurs reportedly rejected an initial £100m bid from City as well as a further one in the region of £127m, repeatedly insisting to the champions that Kane was not for sale.

It appeared that the England captain, who signed a six-year contract with Spurs in 2018, was hoping that City would come back with an offer that might change Levy’s mind before the August 31st deadline – something in the region of £150m.

However, no such offer materialised and he remains a Tottenham player, at least until the transfer window reopens at the turn of the year.

“Daniel Levy was never going to cash in on the cheap,” Spurs Views tells FansBet.

“I don’t think City were willing to pay anywhere near what Spurs were looking for and I’ve massive respect for Levy for sticking to his guns.

“The advantages of having Kane in your side for an extra season or two versus the potential of throwing your season into turmoil and risking big money on a new striker bedding in was simply not worth it for Tottenham.”

The situation was made worse by the fact that Kane appeared to have gone missing ahead of the start of the new season, something the striker strongly denied.

Spurs had expected Kane to return from an extended post-European Championship break on August 3rd but he failed to show, amid speculation over his future in North London.

But the England forward, who had been on holiday in the Bahamas and Florida following Euro 2020, insists he has never “refused to train”, although added that he would not, “go into the specifics of the situation.”

“My understanding is that Harry Kane’s actions this summer weren’t actually as bad as it seems” claims Spurs Views.

“While Harry’s absence from training was far from ideal, the club knew about his absence which suggests to me that the information put out to the media was from his representation.

“He hired a new representation agency midway through the window which says it all. It was a silly thing to do with all the talk surrounding him but if he commits himself this season and does what he does best, I reckon he’ll win the doubters in the fanbase back over.”

His late arrival meant Kane missed the opening two games of the season – the win over City and the Europa Conference League defeat at Pacos de Ferreira.

He did feature in Spurs’ victory at Wolves in late August, however, coming on as a 71st-minute substitute at Molineux, where Spurs won 1-0 thanks to an early Dele Alli penalty.

Kane was applauded on to the pitch by the travelling fans, a gesture he reciprocated after the final whistle.

Wolves fans weren’t so kind, however, chanting “There’s only one greedy b******” and “He’ll be a Manc in the morning,” at the 28-year old forward.

Nuno Espírito Santo later praised the England skipper for helping Tottenham Hotspur to all three points, though doubts will remain as to how much of a distraction the situation will be to the club and its manager.

“I don’t think it’s actually been a distraction for Nuno,” notes Spurs Views.

“I worried before the start of the season that it would have been and Nuno actually gave it very few mentions in the media but it obviously would’ve hampered preparations.

“However, such is his belief in his squad and his project that it didn’t translate on the pitch. I’ve been so impressed with how Nuno conducts himself and the start to the season couldn’t have been better.”

The Kane saga aside, it was a reasonably good transfer window for Spurs.

They were able to offload some deadwood this summer with a number of high earners leaving the club with Toby Alderweireld, Moussa Sissoko, Serge Aurier, Erik Lamela, Joe Hart and Danny Rose departing.

Meanwhile, Cristian Romero, Emerson Royal, Bryan Gil, Pierluigi Gollini and Pape Matarr Sarr all arrived at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium.

“I’m happy with the squad and we have shifted a lot of deadwood, which is fantastic, but we still haven’t replaced Eriksen,” says Spurs Views.

“You can see quite clearly that we lack an attacking midfielder. We lack a creative spark from the middle; someone who can pick pockets, thread the ball through the lines and chip in with goals from the middle.

“We also need a backup striker as, if Kane or Son get injured, we simply don’t have anyone in the squad who can replace those goals.”

With Kane only playing a full 90 minutes once this season and Spurs top of the Premier League, boasting the only 100 per cent record in the country, it begs the question whether Spurs must keep him at all costs.

The player himself has insisted his conscience is clear after his unsuccessful attempt to force a move and the Spurs faithful appear to be willing to forgive and forget, for the time being at least.

But is it time to start thinking about life after Harry?

“If Kane does leave next year, I think the club should be looking towards the likes of Alexander Isak or Dusan Vlahovic,” reveals Spurs Views.

“But Harry can’t be replaced with just a striker. We don’t have the luxury of luring in the best current strikers in Europe like Lukaku, Lewandowski or Haaland so we need to be more pragmatic.

“Maybe we should do something similar to what Villa did with Grealish and replace elements in his game with a few players like a winger, an attacking midfielder and a striker; he’s that good.

“I will never agree with anyone who thinks Tottenham would be better off without Harry Kane. He’s the best striker in the world in my opinion and to suggest we’d be better off without him is utterly ludicrous.”