This is true
However to consider paying 28m for a player,as a manager you would have to weigh up if this is his value now based on his abilities and not what he may become(bit risky for a club of our meager finances)
So our manager rates him as a 28m player and so does the guy who handed over the cash to pay it
Now a 28m player you would assume could trap a ball,head a ball etc.....
He can score goals, and as a striker he can not trap a ball all game as long as he takes that one chance he gets, like last night. Van nistelroy was not an all round footballer, he couldnt dribble past players or do some mad skills or even shoot from range, but he still scored more than most other players.
Point is the reason why he invested so much is because we had to. Here was a chance to sign an amazing prospect who averages 15 a season at a young age and to try and move the club forward we had to finally take the chance after spending so little previous years. How would we have all been if luakaku went somewhere like liverpool or wolfsberg or even newcastle becasue they stumped the money up and we didnt?
I am still under the belief that chelsea wanted to sell to balance their books only, and the reason why he went so much is because they kept asking for more money without officially accepting a bid. So they ask for 15, athletico interested. They go to 18, athletico drop out, they ask for 20, juve drop out, they ask for 25, wolfsburg drop out and then the loan fee is added on for us so we 'technically' pay them 28 million for him. chelsea make 10 million more to balance their books by simply raising the quote and we overpay but still get potentially our greatest striker since the 20s