I'm also of the opinion that we should sign players from wherever, so long as they're talented. If all things were equal, its better if they're British or Irish because it means more years at the club.
However, it has to be really talented players who at the very least look better than our own. For example, Max Aarons at age 19 was young player of the year. My problem with Longstaff is that he's already 21, has only played 11 PL games, so most of his experience is from League 1. With that much experience is he clearly more talented than our own James Garner? No it is not that obvious. So I'm against the signing for the money he's going for. Am I a little biased against players who are 21 years old and aren't established? Yes because they're a little riskier than young players who are showing to be special at a younger age. You have to really show yourself to be special and I don't think Longstaff fits that.
For example, here are some players who aren't established at the highest level, but are clearly wonderkids. It's still a pretty mixed group with some failing at the highest level, haven't debuted at the highest level, or have a lot of success, but at a smaller level.
Unuvar (Ajax)
Gravenberch (Ajax)
Rayan Cherki (Lyon)
Max Aarons (Norwich)
Tonali (Brescia)
Ryan Sessegnon (Fulham)
I'll even take this kid
Matt O'Riley (Fulham)
I'm not saying these kids will turn out better than Longstaff. You never know with young players and different players develop at different rates. All I'm saying is that if we buy someone, they have to be clearly talented at a younger age, or be with a very small fee. This is probably where we disagree.
It will be interesting to see how much Sander Berge goes for when he is bought. Will he be more expensive than Longstaff?