There’s two ways to look at this:
1. Højlund himself : ignore what he actually cost and that we brought him to be our leading striker now. We have to pretend that we paid £30m for him as a promising backup and that our actual world class striker is injured, resulting in him being the main man. Against that backdrop, he’d be doing okay. He has some moments of promise and poor performances are entirely excusable.
2. The club: Højlund is the type of signing to make from a position of strength, with a view to him being back up and gradually increasing his involvement over the next few seasons. Unfortunately, we don’t possess any world class CF and so we should not have been going anywhere near him in the summer, unless we also had the money to buy a CF ready to lead the line now. We got completely ripped off by Atlanta who knew that we had no real alternative and didn’t even sign him early enough to give him a proper pre-season. A completely crazy signing, in keeping with our transfer business over recent years.