I'd rather we use some 'credit' to buy Kane for 100m than pay +60m for Hojlund.
I don't want to sound negative but this lad does remind me of Belotti. Decent but nothing special. I still remember the hype about Belotti but tbh back then I didn't see anything special in him. And Belotti had much much better stats than Hojlund I think.
40m might worth the risks and we would be able to recoup some of it if things don't go well but 60m is simply too much imo. I'd rather use that money on Kane. We all know and could be pretty sure what we could get from him.
Belotti was not even decent and never showed the natural instincts or hold-up play that Højlund has.
Belotti was also two years older when he had his freak season where he scored 26 goals. Look away from that season, and he has never gone one season where he scored over 10 open-play goals, and he played full seasons as well (2900-3300 minutes).
At Højlund's age, Cavani was playing for Palermo and scored 5 goals in his first proper season. The two following seasons before his transfer to Napoli, he scored 14 and 13 goals respectively (full seasons). Napoli bought him when he was 23.
Lewandowski played for Lech Poznan at 20 years of age, and only scored 8 goals in his first season for Dortmund at 21.
There seems to be this idea that, after Haaland, you don't become a great striker unless you score a ridiculous amount of goals at a young age. Goals don't really matter that much at that age because they don't tell the whole story.
The important thing is showcasing the natural ability and why you potentially
can score a lot of goals and Højlund certainly has done that. His movement and instincts are already brilliant and will only improve.
I wouldn't say he's ready to lead the line for us, but if we don't get him now, the alternative could be that he has a brilliant season this year and Atalanta adds another €60m to his price tag like Napoli did with Osimhen while we're stuck with some aging striker like we usually are.