Bertie Wooster
Full Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2021
- Messages
- 3,920
Didn’t Mount have a year left and we still paid £60 million for him?
Rightly or wrongly, I guess the rationale behind paying that was that, if you look at other fees of some of the current English talent who didn't have a year left on their contracts -- Maguire, Rice, Grealish, etc - they were going for £80m-100m, so it was him having a year left that made him available and for £60m? SImilar to Chelsea signing Sterling in his last year for £50m.Under the previous incompetent regime yes.
Of course, whether we actually needed that kind of player, and whether Mount is at the same comparative level as Rice and Grealish is also up for debate. As is whether it needed to be an English player with the added 'English tax...' or if we couldn't have got better elsewhere?