Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Liverpool would’ve been better off spending big on Werner than Jota

Liverpool have been the kings of the transfer market in recent times.

It seems like it’s been a long while since the Reds have gotten a signing wrong, with Jurgen Klopp assembling a world-beating side that has delivered both domestic and continental success.

However, they haven’t got here by just spending whatever they’ve wanted, a clever system of good sales and smart buys has left them with a comparatively small net spend, but for all their good work, one transfer has to be questioned, especially when you consider some of the Reds’ previous transfer business.

Watch Liverpool Videos With Below

The Merseyside outfit have just completed the signing of Diogo Jota for a reported £45m fee, and while the Portuguese winger has all the tools needed to be a rousing success at Anfield, you have to wonder why they opted for Jota at £45m over Timo Werner at £47.5m?

Werner was a well-known target of Liverpool’s and at one point it looked as though the deal would be done, but they couldn’t cough up the cash to get it over the line and in the end, the German went to Chelsea.

Yet, here we are a few months later and Michael Edwards is brokering a deal for just £2.5m less for a man who scored 21 league goals fewer than Werner last season, that doesn’t seem like value for money to us.

1 of 19

How much did Liverpool pay to sign Takumi Minamino from Red Bull Salzburg?

Of course, wages could have been the stumbling block, but with Thiago reportedly earning £210k a week after signing for the Reds, we can’t imagine that paying Werner what he wanted would have been too much of a problem.

No matter which way you look at it, the Anfield outfit have missed a trick here, Jota may well become a fantastic player, but it’s hard to argue that he provides better value for money than Werner would have.

Article title: Liverpool would’ve been better off spending big on Werner than Jota

Please leave feedback to help us improve the site: