It's a simple cost/benefit analysis, that's all. Being a striker the measurables are as straightforward as can be: a club spends X amount of money on a striker, and he provides Y number of goals for you. If the production is there, it was worth the money, if it isn't, it wasn't.
I just think this signing was another example of us not doing signings the right way. When it comes to strikers, I think you do it one of two ways; you spend big on the sure thing, like the Kanes and the Osimhens and the Haalands of the world, or you scout properly and develop a young player who you might be able to turn into the next Kane or Osimhen or Haaland. If it's the former, you know they're gonna get you the 25+ goals that you desperately need from that position, and if it's the latter, and it doesn't work out, there's not much of a sunk cost because the initial investment was low.
But what do we do, we go and spend 70 million on a kid who is a diamond in the rough and comes with absolutely zero reasonable expectation of an immediate return on investment, which is something you pretty much have to have when you spend that kind of money on a player.
This is why I love baseball and its many interesting forms of statistical analysis. In baseball, you can use data to determine a player's WAR- wins above replacement. This is how much we spent on this player, and that is how many extra wins he provided our team this season. There's really no ambiguity when it comes to whether or not you made a good investment.