This is largely a more polished re-post of something I wrote in another thread but if the moderators will indulge me, I think it's important to read the followng when discussing incoming transfer targets and rumours. I believe it would help avoid a common argument in these cases. And please understand, it's not meant to insult or offend anyone. Here goes:
There are two approaches to signing players and it can be frustrating to read and discuss because advocates of each, both don't understand the other position and it becomes like an Abbott and Costello routine.
Position #1: We should get players from X place in the world (say South America, to use a common example) because they're inexpensive or their style of play would suit us/help the team.
Position #2: It shouldn't matter where players come from so long as they're good and help the team.
Position #1 doesn't actually, truly care where a player comes from, but is simply pointing out that they think the team would be further helped by signing a South American player (to continue using the example) because you get good talent for your money, which is important in a cap world. There exist other similar rationales as well to explain advocating signing a player from a particular region of the world.
Position #2 largely believes in/understands the same principles as Position #1 but just doesn't specify so in its analyses/arguments. Position #2 often (but not always, so don't jump on me ) misinterprets Position #1 as being "ethnically driven" (touchy term but I couldn't think of another one) or being prejudiced (the word has negative connotations, but I mean here it in the sense of "preference" and not imply there's any malice such as racism or xenophobia) for and/or against a player from a certain region of the world.
Position #1 simply believes Position #2 doesn't get the subtle distinctions they are making when in fact both parties are in fact in agreement with each other.
Recognize yourself in either of these? Hope this helps.