It was too much of a risk for Arsenal, who thought he was too expensive, according to Clive from the AV podcast, who seems to know football in and around the Milton Keynes area quite well.
And Grant Shackleton wasn't £40m, was he? Bit harsh to add five to ten million onto a player's fee just to qunt him off. Are you Tony Cascarino?
Well.. To you and everyone else that interpreted this as a slight on Xhaka, it wasn't.. My comment was simply that it was a far greater risk to spend 40m on a player, with no major track record in playing in one of the most competitive leagues in Europe, as opposed to taking a punt of £5m on a player from the lower divisions.
For the record. I like Xhaka. I like his spirit, a tad reckless perhaps but certainly a player that adds steel to the midfield. A good eye for goal and as SC pointed out, a very good passer of a ball.
Ok, but if we are to "spend some fùcking money" as so many have been demanding, and especially in an inflated market, then that is going to involve risk by its nature. After all, the reason why we didn't spend the chuffing money for so long was because the club/manager thought it too much of a risk, at a time of austerity for the club.
Did Man Utd take a risk on Pogba? Yes, but it doesn't matter because they can probably afford a risk like that every year. We might be able to do that once, but we couldn't do that every year.
Pogba, while a fine footballer, represented a club making a huge PR statement.
One of the 2-3 biggest clubs in the world yet seen by many to be in decline, albeit temporary. A club missing from the very top table of club football, the CL.
So what do you do, go out and remind the world who you are by signing the most expensive footballer in the world. He was a signing beyond the obvious impact on and ability on the pitch. A risk perhaps but an investment nonetheless.