OverratedOpinion
Full Member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2017
- Messages
- 8,657
None of this is particularly relevant to the point being made about us not spending 45 million euros on Gakpo in January. We had money to spend that could either be spent in January on a player like Gakpo for possible short to mid-term benefit or be kept back to be used for summer targets. The club decided that getting a midfielder and experienced striker on loan for a tiny fraction of the cost of buying a player on a permanent deal was the better way to go. Especially when that player (Gakpo) is best on the left where at the time we had Rashford, Sancho and Garnacho as options.
So no, I do not agree it was an embarrasment to get Sabitzer (a quality player) and Weghorst (didn't score enough but otherwise did what the manager asked him to do), especially when the end result was a trophy and finishing 3rd.
If we end the summer with Mount, Onana, Hojlund and Amrabat then the squad is a lot stronger than the one that finished last season. If buying Gakpo meant no Hojlund (an actual 9 rather than left sided attacker), then I think we'd be worse off in the long run.
Perhaps we just agree to disagree. I have many issues with Glazernomics, but, with hindsight, the January non-spend isn't one of them.
With Hojlund we still need another striker in an ideal world considering Martial's fitness.
If you look at it as either or then sure you might be right but the fact that we have to make that decision all comes back to the Glazers.
Are we not significantly better off in January signing Gakpo rather than Weghorst and would we also not be significantly better off going forward having Gakpo as an option in our squad (as well as Hojlund) considering Hojlund is very young and may take a little while to settle?