To cut to the chase: Chermiti looks like one of those signings that has settled into the price tag, while Moore is trickier. The numbers are what they are — you can argue about the fee paid, but what matters is whether the player justifies the spend and if there’s a realistic route to recoup some cash down the line.

Chermiti — slow burn to justification

When we first signed Chermiti a few eyebrows were raised; some felt £9m was on the high side and that £6–7m would have been fair. Fair enough. But form and adaptation matter. If he’s now being talked of as worth £12–15m, that looks like tidy business. To be fair, that’s not just about goals on a spreadsheet — it’s about fits the team, how he links play, the tempo he gives us and the market seeing him as a reliable asset.

Moore — a gamble with a ceiling

Moore’s situation is different. He arrived with a summer valuation of about £20m, which in Scottish terms is near the ceiling for what a selling club can hope to get for a player moving back down south. If we structure a deal at, say, £15m rising to £20m with add-ons and a sell-on, that’s sensible thinking. But it’s not guaranteed cash; it’s conditional and hinges on performance and interest.

Do the sums stack up?

Let’s say, hypothetically, we get £30m for him later and only keep 80% after sell-on clauses — the profit looks reasonable on paper. The truth is every transfer is a gamble. The outlay now is steep and the payoff might come later, if at all. It comes down to whether the board and chairman are prepared to back the deal, knowing the payoff could arrive over a couple of seasons or when a buying club comes calling.

In short: Chermiti is looking like the sort of signing that justifies its fee. Moore could too, but it’s riskier. If the club believes in him and can accept the financial gamble, there’s a path to it being good business. If not, that’s a discussion for the boardroom rather than the pitch.

Written by Stevie_G_new: 23 May 2026

Tags: transfers match-review tactics