How about I offer you 200k for your house but you want 300k? Now do you want to lose 200k or 100k or could there possibly be a third option?
Problem is Kane not an house.
He is a human being, with feelings, ambitions, and a direct relationship with Levy.
We know Kane cares more about what others/the media/Spurs fans think of him than quite a few other star athletes today (which I actually don't blame them for today as this saga shows why loyalty from players to clubs/fans can be completely thrown in the bin in a flash)
Levy may be the owner of Spurs, and Kane's services for 3 more seasons but he also doesn't own Kane forever as would one who owns a home.
Kane's shelf life at his quality, is limited and therefore time sensitive. That favours Levy, yes, but before I list his advantages, we should also mention that the limited shelf-life of property, such as a bottle of wine, or tickets to the CL final are inanimate objects whom do not have interpersonal relationships with their owners.
We also know footballers (and other working human beings) have shown a history of fighting owners to have more of a say in their life and bad contracts have been offered and signed by many times (widely documented in the entertainment industry) that are designed to take advantage of less educated and less cut-throat personalities.
Kane stayed hoping things would work out with Spurs, signing that contract with the "gentleman's agreement," passing on chances to leave, gave it one more go last season, and now wants out, but only apparently Levy gets to have all the say. See the issue here?
We know Levy is able to use the short time left in the transfer window, combined with a massive favouring of supply-demand towards his position, as he knows City are desperate to sign a striker this season, a limited number of players at his level, and how well Kane fits into City in what he offers as a player.
Yet, again, should that Kane's limited shelf-life AND that he is a human, not a house, seems as if it should matter. Is he not entitled to have feelings about whether £150-160m is truly a fair fee given what other players are going for of his quality or even better?
Yes, City have money and FFP is gone for now to allow such spending - but even with that is Kane even close to £50-60m better than Lukaku and when Halland will go for possibly £60m next summer?
If it would up being 155-160M Euros (£130-136M) would that truly be "unacceptable" to Spurs fans?
Is it possible, despite the valid points that show the cards Levy has, that he may be in the slightest bit exploiting Kane's good will and "kinder" personality to ensure he appears to "win" mostly to maintain his reputation (ego), and that Kane believes this and feels it is self-serving, but is unable to express concerns publicly because he cares about the club and fans?
How far should a player/employee have to go to bend over backwards to please their employer and fans who turn their back on a player like Kane in a flash as we can see from this Spurs forum vote:
Opinion on Kane now?
Forgive and forget?
Votes: 242 27.6%Fuck him
Votes: 635 72.4%
If Kane were a less loyal, and good character player, would Levy be digging in quite as much? I ask this because I can see Levy thinking, "Even if Harry doesn't go, he won't cause too much turmoil in the locker room compared to others because I know how much he loves the club, the fans, and how much of a model professional he is."
Btw, I can see this possibility as part of the reason why Kane had to arrive late to training. HeHAD to show something to Levy, even if he knew it would/could backfire in other ways, because perhaps he doesn't trust Levy given the fee he is asking for him.
All of this points to why Kane is not a house and why such comparisons (I argued similar with a Villa supporter who made the same argument regarding Grealish:
