This Vidal injury is a classical case of risk analysis and will have more to do with the financial aspect of things than the footballing aspects. The club will have probably by now asked the medical experts how likely Vidal's injury is to occur again or hamper him from going back to his level. That number or percentage coupled with a few other things will have determined how the club proceeds:
- What is the club's financial tolerance? If Vidal doesn't recover properly and ROI on Vidal's transfer fee + wages is minimal, how will that impact the finances of the club and what will be the long term on the pitch as well as in the market?
- What is the threshold for the tranfer fee +wages at which the likelihood of the injury being persistent decides whether to buy Vidal or not? This means that the risk drives the maximum fee we will be prepared to pay. A risk of 15% might mean we are willing to pay up to 50m and as the risk increases, the maximum will have to decrease. It is not necessarily a linear relationship either.
- If we choose to not invest in Vidal, what are some potential financial risks? The higher those are, the more likely we are to take the risky investment that is Vidal.
In footballing terms, the last question is determined by whether or not there is other viable options that present a lower risk.
These calculations are not straightforward but a risk analysis can come up with results such as buying Modic for 70m is a less risky investmen than buying Vidal for 35.
I'm sure a club as big as ours hires consultants to work out these scenarios and that can be one of the things that delays transfer. I'd be happy if that is the case. A methodological approach like this does not guarantee things a 100% but more often than not, you will get the big decision right.