Did we play a similar game with Caicedo and Lavia… interesting times. I’m happy with those that have come in already - all this is great added theater.
Did we not want Lavia, who Chelsea also went for, and so put in a bigger offer for Caicedo? Anyway Chelsea paid more for both in the end due to our involvement.
I think there is probably a good comparison to that situation, in that we are likely interested in both but view them as in different categories of readiness/certainty and therefore valuations. The problem is that a lot of people have some fairly conspiratorial ideas about what happened that summer (e.g. “we never wanted Caicedo, Henry just wanted to pretend to the fans that he was willing to spend money”) that it makes it difficult to draw comparisons to the situation and have anyone agree on what you’re even talking about.
I really don’t see this interest as a smokescreen. We are interested in both players. Our interest is recognised in reputable enough sources.
I don’t see a comparison with Caicedo/Lavia either to be honest. Our spending this summer shows we mean business. We aren’t fluting around. Playing silly games is over.
Agree they fell into different categories and that it wasn’t a tit-for-tat situation - I did not see it that way but my response may have pointed to that. The “they paid more” bit was just my add-on as a nod to the consequence - which was a just outcome in my opinion.