I’m really not a fan of rewriting history.
Claiming we should have kept one of Defoe or Mousset over signing Solanke.
Ignoring the facts on Defoe and Mousset’s contract situation or even his goal return of 3 goals in 3 years.
It’s just bending history to suit an argument. An argument that’s based on the fact that Neil thought both Mousset and Surridge were better prospects than Solanke - to coin a phrase - at that time. But we now have ever moving goalposts, bent timelines to try and move the debate in a different direction.
All of this appears to be easier than just admitting you got something wrong or indeed just confessing that other people got it right.
Namely of course the recruitment team who hauled in £15million for Mousset and Surridge whilst spending £19million on Solanke.