[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Neal š¦šŗ [@NealGardner_](/creator/twitter/NealGardner_) on x 164.9K followers Created: 2025-07-21 07:03:56 UTC I want to talk about the state of the striker market, and why itās becoming increasingly daunting. To start, if you donāt wish to read āallatā, the essence of what Iām going to expand on is that I believe itās better, safer and potentially more productive to sign āolderā strikers. See, historically, the idea with investing young was this: inherent the risks of signing a player in development, but do so for cheaper than a āguaranteeā - the established goal machines. Thatās no longer the case, largely because the market landscape is very different. As we know, one good season is all it takes for a player to be worth 80/90m. There are countless examples of this. What, then, is the point? Itās high risk, high reward, inheriting jeopardy many canāt afford. I allude to BarƧa signing Lewandowski. It wasnāt initially obvious to me, but in hindsight, he was the perfect stop-gap. Itās like the dynamics were flipped. Older player, lower fee, but goals guaranteed. Heās already given us X good years, the ROI is brilliant. Begs the question, post-Lewandowski, can we repeat the same formula? The striker market is bleak, inflated, and younger players inherently carry greater risks. Iād say unreasonably so. Unless we can land a Haaland, which we obviously canāt, I donāt see the appeal. As an example. Kaneās contract is up in 2027. Heās everything we need and more, would probably give us even better output than Lewandowski. Itās naturally a very complex deal, but itās similar to Lewandowski, and Iād much rather test the waters here than drop 120m+ on someone like Alvarez. Guirassy, too, a similar idea. XXXXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [investment](/topic/investment) [Post Link](https://x.com/NealGardner_/status/1947190791601823744)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Neal š¦šŗ @NealGardner_ on x 164.9K followers
Created: 2025-07-21 07:03:56 UTC
I want to talk about the state of the striker market, and why itās becoming increasingly daunting.
To start, if you donāt wish to read āallatā, the essence of what Iām going to expand on is that I believe itās better, safer and potentially more productive to sign āolderā strikers.
See, historically, the idea with investing young was this: inherent the risks of signing a player in development, but do so for cheaper than a āguaranteeā - the established goal machines.
Thatās no longer the case, largely because the market landscape is very different. As we know, one good season is all it takes for a player to be worth 80/90m. There are countless examples of this.
What, then, is the point? Itās high risk, high reward, inheriting jeopardy many canāt afford. I allude to BarƧa signing Lewandowski. It wasnāt initially obvious to me, but in hindsight, he was the perfect stop-gap.
Itās like the dynamics were flipped. Older player, lower fee, but goals guaranteed. Heās already given us X good years, the ROI is brilliant.
Begs the question, post-Lewandowski, can we repeat the same formula? The striker market is bleak, inflated, and younger players inherently carry greater risks. Iād say unreasonably so.
Unless we can land a Haaland, which we obviously canāt, I donāt see the appeal. As an example. Kaneās contract is up in 2027. Heās everything we need and more, would probably give us even better output than Lewandowski.
Itās naturally a very complex deal, but itās similar to Lewandowski, and Iād much rather test the waters here than drop 120m+ on someone like Alvarez. Guirassy, too, a similar idea.
XXXXXXX engagements
Related Topics investment