The lack of money available for a replacement does not equate to the need for the second sale. It only helps to explain the motive behind picking Hakimi to sell instead of Lukaku initially. To be fair to management it is usually easier to replace a wingback than a 20+ goal striker.
The point as I’m also explaining to
@.h. is that we were only going to be forced to make one sale. It needed to be done before the end of the fiscal year. We put Hakimi on the market and had an immediate taker in PSG. Lukaku was never on the market, we were approached by Chelsea late in the window with a massive offer.
That decision made by management is what’s frustrating because in the end we lost both players. Lukaku was never forced out, he left because of the increased salary and some bullshit redemption arc in his mind. Meanwhile many on this forum that summer were screaming from the very beginning that Lukaku should have been the “sacrifice” all along. They were right. We would have certainly been better off with Hakimi + Dzeko instead of Dumfries + Dzeko/Correa.
And that’s before we even get into passing on Dybala last summer. Clown show.