goon wrote:
Clrnc wrote:
Most of them are first teamers, Liverpool get way more for nonsense youth players while we sell genuine gems for peanuts
Solanke played quite a few games for Liverpool to be fair, I think he even got an England cap. Brewster also scored 10 goals in the Championship.
Either way though, saying we should get £60m for Willock because SU are mugs who paid £23m for Brewster is a logical fallacy.
If you want to be fair Solanke played 580 minutes for Liverpool in total and his single England cap was almost eighteen months before he went to Bournemouth. If the bonuses were reached (most likely not exactly stuff like winning the CL with Bournemouth) they will have paid €28m for a player who was out injured two months at the time of the transfer and hadn't played a single game all season even when he was fit.
Where's the logical fallacy other than nobody said in this thread what you're suggesting was said? If you're on the market and see a customer who's insanely wasteful with other salesmen you'd be a moron not to try to take advantage of him. There are plenty of clubs who are known to be complete mugs in the market, Newcastle might not be as bad as BM or SU but they also spent 44m on Joelinton not that long ago. If we're selling Willock it has to be at a fee which allows us to reinforce, and there are enough signs to say that we don't have to be content with anything close to 30m.
