Yeah Harry, I know. 
Benteke, being a better footballer (undisputed opinion that, you reckon) was obviously less of a risk in a footballing sense. If you want to talk finance then a player who cost less obviously is less of a risk for cu*ts who don't care about football [i.e. the investors, who lose less].
I believed that both went without me having to spell it out to someone who's not stupid... so I didn't.
I was obviously talking football, you were (probably) talking finance, the maggot is just being snide like the two-faced, lily-livered, hypocritical c**t that he is. 
(btw as you clearly struggle to understand I'm laughing at both your logic and your insults, you can clearly do better if you try harder)
What I find hilarious is the fact you don't seem to understand that the % of the transfer budget spent represents the level of risk in both a football and financial sense. The cost will
always have a consequence in both a football and a financial sense. They correlate and always will do until we have owners with limitless funds and a transfer budget without restrictions.
As these conditions are impossible to meet (owners with truly limitless resources) we'll assume that you're discussing this matter in the real world rather than some fantasy.
Reported figures:
Benteke £32m purchase price
£140k a week wages
Balotelli£16m purchase price
£75k - £80k a week wages
Roughly half the investement (both financial and football), even a person with the most basic grasp of economics can understand that if we want to compare the risk (both football and financial) we would have to allow the option to buy a second player on almost exactly the same contract. This would spread both the risk, by giving us further options, but also increase the chances (by almost double) of filling the void periods in terms of injuries.
We did that but foolishly we allowed him to not join the club and indeed loaned him out:
Origi£10m purchase price
£15k a week wages
*note there's still £6m and roughly 45k a week wages disparity (could have got Dele Alli and some
)
This was Brendan Rodgers £10m riskWe chose to rely on only a £16m investment, therefore disproportionately increasing the risk on Balotelli. It's quite clear with hindsight that we should have spent more on a player of greater ability or players that would be immediately available. That risk was assumed by all those involved in that decision and that's where the greatest mistake of the previous transfer window occurred and Balotelli was left to carry the full weight of Brendans and the TC failure. The fact that he wanted him or not is actually irrelevant because he was involved in all stages of the process, he either directly or indirectly allowed this to happen. He admitted it was a gamble one that occurred through an over reliance on a false assumption made by all parties (Alexis Sanchez).
This season we (Brendan fully included) decided to put £32m into one player and therefore risked a greater % of our transfer budget on this one player (assuming our budgets remain the same (for clarity we spent £38.77m (net) in the Balotelli transfer window and only £22m (net) in the Benteke transfer window, which represents a greater ratio in terms of actual investment and therefore an even greater risk in both football and financial terms on Benteke)). For him to be deemed a lesser risk he would at the very least need to prove something better than the combined efforts of those that
totalled his investment.
What has transpired is a very young player who cost 3 times less has overtaken him in the pecking order and indeed Benteke will be leaving the club after just 1 year with us. These are clear indicators that he has
failed, financially we may indeed redeem a large portion of what we spent on him but in football terms he has not delivered on the risk we (being Brendan and the TC) took on him.
So the truth is that the risk placed on Balotelli's transfer was completely disproportionate both in financial and football terms (thankfully we had more players to cover Benteke's failure) to Benteke's. Brendan should have spread the risk on immediately available players and perhaps then we would have had an Origi to call upon last season and indeed the 'failure' of the combined transfers would not look nearly as bad as judging a player priced at half the value and half the wages directly against a player of double value and double the wages.
Only somebody completely naive would attempt to equate the two in
either a football or financial sense.Balotelli failed.
Benteke failed.
Brendan Rodgers and the Transfer Committee failed.
