I've read a few posts on here saying that we got the same money for Rose that we paid for Winnall but when I first heard the Ben Mansford interview that is not the impression I got. I've listened to it back again and Mansford says "the package that we have got is comparable to what was involved in the Winall deal". I initially took that to mean that the make up of the deal was of a similar nature ie an initial amount with add-ons dependent on things such as appearances, goals scored, promotion etc. I didn't think it meant that the fee was the same and, on listening to it again, I'm still of the same impression. Maybe I'm reading too much into the words that Ben Mansford used but if the fee was the same I'm sure he could have said that in a much concise way. My understanding of the Winnall deal was that he has cost us somewhere around £250k rising to a possible £500k if he scores the goals that get us promoted. If that is close to the substance of the Winnall deal I'm just not sure I can see Bury having that kind of money, or, more to the point, risking it for a young lad who has only scored a handful of league goals, particularly if that kind of fee can buy you a striker who has just finished as top scorer in your division.
I hope you're right. If we have managed to get a 24 goal a season striker in for the same money we have sold an unproven young player (albeit with promise) for, then that is great business on Barnsley's part. I just get the feeling there was a bit of politician-style spin thrown in by Ben Mansford to soften the blow of selling on one of our home-grown talents.
