Or like Norwich spend 8m and get 1 goal in Van wolfswinkel. How anyone can equate fee to number of goals is absolutely absurd. You could get someone for less than that who is better. You could get someone who is free who is better. Its not about what we pay but the players ability.
You are right transfer fees don't mean a lot. A £20 million player may never settle and a £2 million player may turn out to be a real bargain. I think the men in charge have to decide whether to go for someone who will be a relatively short term fix and can slot in straightaway or someone who can slot in off the bench and act as cover whilst growing and developing as a player. I think fear would mean the first option and ambition the second. I would prefer ambition.
But you are equating a fee to the number of goals someone will score. How does that work. If the best option is 15m then spend it, if a quality player becomes available on a free with high wages and that is the best option then take it. You cant just say well spend 8m and we will get 10 goals. That is just nonsense.
Players a valued at certain figures for a reason. I am just highlighting the expectations that come from certain fees. You wouldn't sign a striker for 1m and expect 20 goals. Same as you wouldn't spend 20m and expect 10 goals. A young striker costing 8m you would expect around 10 goals a season right away. Thats the reason he would be valued at 8m. But he can easily develop through the right coaching into a 20 goal a season striker once he hits his prime. That is what we should be aiming for imo as we already have a 15-20 goal a season striker in our ranks.
£12m - £15m for a striker is the bottom end of the market but within our budget......The striker is the most expensive cost to any premiership club trying to improve....we cant skimp on the strikers position...