Arsenal signed Alexandre Lacazette for a club record fee amid much fanfare, with Manchester United responding in kind by putting up a lot more money to sign a proven Premier League striker in Romelu Lukaku.
Naturally, the debate started amongst the fans over who had gotten the better deal, as these two clubs, the dominant sides in the first half of the Premier League era, look to get back to their glory days again.
If you are going to win a title, it is almost a given that you are going to need a striker capable of scoring 25-30 goals in the season.
And Arsenal, after flirting with a world record move for Kylian Mbappe, had landed on Lacazette, with Manchester United, following a long transfer saga with Real Madrid over Alvaro Morata, deciding to pay £75 million plus add ons for the Belgian striker.
Now, it would be about which of the clubs had made the better signing(s) – if you take the whole summer transfer window into account by the time the Premier League season really gets going – once the season hits the take-off mark.
However, on Monday a story came out in the English newspapers, suggesting Jose Mourinho – the be all and end all of football, right – had decided against signing Alexandre Lacazette – who was waiting with open arms, hoping for a nice big hug from Mourinho and a move to Man Utd apparently.
The reason?
Because, Lacazette is not physically right for the Premier League and is not a big-game player.
"Lacazette was followed because he was top scorer in French football, but a lot of his goals were penalties," a source told various newspapers in England on Monday.
"In the end he wasn't considered because he has no stamina, no physical impact and isn't a big game player."
Ironically, the one big criticism of Lukaku is that he doesn't do it in the big games, but hey, let's unnecessarily bring down a signing from a rival club, just because we can. It might all be true, it might not, but there is absolutely no need to feed it to the media with a well-placed "source."
You can almost guess what the conversation would have been like over at Old Trafford or in Los Angeles, where United are camped for their preseason tour.
M: There is a lot of Twitter talk over Lacazette probably being the better signing than Lukaku.
E: What, that can't happen, what do we do? Ah I know, time for our "source" to do its work.
M: Yes, let's make it nice and juicy so that I come out looking like a God.
E: Of course, always.
This story, this leaked news from the "source" is precisely what makes Manchester United such a hard club to admire.
What was the need for such a leak? Does it make Manchester United look better and like the high and mighty club that they want to be perceived as? This is the kind of propaganda stories that you find every day in Marca or El Mundo Deportivo, waxing lyrical over Real Madrid and Barcelona.
There is being a big club and a great club, and great clubs are the ones you end up admiring.
Now, Arsenal aren't the picture of goodness and wonderfulness – some of the unsavoury leaks that came out while Arsene Wenger was under pressure last season was diabolical to say the least – but you don't see these sorts of things from their "sources", trying to belittle a rival club's signing.
You might (ok, will) hear Wenger speaking about how he missed out on "A, B, C and Z" signings in a press conference, but he won't say "Ah, we didn't go for Lukaku, because his first touch is a bit like a racquet hitting a crazy ball." He might say, "he was too expensive for us," but that will be about it.
Manchester United, in trying to justify everything they do and trying to make it look like they have everything under control and they remain the preferred destination for every single footballer on the planet, should not lose sight of being that great club – everyone has their faults, but belittling a player, who has just signed for a rival club for a massive fee, cannot be justified.
