Rohl seems to have been looking out for Curtis and Cameron, wanting them to play regularly somewhere they actually get starts. You can see the logic — lads need minutes. Moore, on the other hand, already had a season of around twenty games at Spurs, so he isn't in that same fresh-prospect limbo.

Why the loan/exit route made sense

To be fair, sending young players to clubs where they'll play makes sense. Not everyone will break straight into our side and sometimes a spell away is the best route to development. If Rohl felt Curtis and Cameron wouldn't get that here, then the loan move is understandable. Moore's situation is different because he has already had meaningful minutes, so the decision over him wasn't identical.

Budget realities — one player or a smarter spread?

Here's the blunt bit: our budget the last few seasons has been roughly £20m. Do we spend the lot on one player on the off chance he becomes a superstar? You can imagine the board's hesitation. If someone wants £20m for Moore, there's probably another club with deeper pockets willing to take that risk and include a sell-on clause. From our point of view, that's an enormous gamble.

Value, pre-season and the safer route

That's where the ASO argument comes in. At around £6m — and I stress that's the figure under discussion, not a hard fact — you'd be buying a player you can shape, give a full pre-season, and potentially sell on for profit later. Smaller outlay, lower risk, still room for upside. It's the pragmatic route. Football isn't just about buying the flashiest name; it's about balance and spreading risk across the squad.

All opinion here, but the bottom line is simple: at £20m we shouldn't be buying Moore. Not when that money could be used smarter across the team. Doesn't feel like a valid discussion to me if the only option on the table is spending the whole budget on one player.

Written by Angus1812: 15 May 2026

Tags: transfers tactics