Romelu Lukaku

[lucio 5,418]

52 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

Didn't he play right wing when Falcao was still at Atletico?  

He was central with koke and turan on the flanks

[!Hazard! 3,394]

Nightmare.

£50M for Stones seems like a bargain next to this one

[OhForAGreavsie 5,890]

1 hour ago, petre.ispirescu said:

You know, all this talk about transfer fees and shit, it really starts being so boring. I buy the Home, Away and the 3rd kit every two seasons for around 300 Euros. Why do I do this when I can easily go to a Chinese depot outside my city and buy all three of them (perfect replica) for less than 30 Euros? Because it's my choice, my money, I pay for something genuine and I don't give a fuck if someone tells me I'm crazy for paying that much for a piece of cotton.

You guys have no idea about all the bonuses included in Lukaku's contract at Everton, but you like to jump at every obscene amount the lousy media throws. Chelsea will not pay 65m to Everton because:

1) Chelsea get 20% from Lukaku's next transfer. So, there is a 13m discount right from the start (should Everton accept a 65m bid).

2) Chelsea get a lot of performance related fees, plus a bonus should Lukaku gets sold for more than 28m. Which he will. 

3) Everton still have not payed the entire 28m for his transfer for Chelsea. So more money to be deducted from here as well.

 

This is why Everton hold for more money, because at this point, with all the clauses, they only get around 45m and are probably looking for something in the region of maybe 53-55m.

You are right Petre. In one aspect.

I, at least, have no idea about the amounts, or clauses in the transfer agreement which took Rom to The Toffees. I had previously read the 20% figure on this forum however. Was it you who posted it? Anyway, asuming it, and the other clauses you mention, are accurate then of course Everton would factor these into their thinking. That's par for the course.

I wonder though how you come to know such details?

Where I would argue that you are not right is in suggesting that the factors you talk about make the deal less expensive for Chelsea. All of those things; the balance of the original fee, the 20% sell on number, and the sundry bonuses, are all Chelsea assets. Giving them up is just the same as spending them.

I still think the best thing for Chelsea to do is allow Rom to join someone else, collect the money we are owed by Everton and our share of the huge fee the other club pays. Of course no one else will pay such a huge fee. No one Rom wants to join anyway.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

1 hour ago, nadavTKL said:

Who plays the second striker? A striker. Two out of Lukaku, Costa and Michy. That's the idea of two strikers, even though i don't like it that much, that's what Conte wants.

Personally I would get Laccazzet instead of Lukaku.

Is it what Conte wants? Because so far the players he's chosen for that position are RLC, Oscar and Hazard. 

[Pizy 18,368]

1 hour ago, !Hazard! said:

Nightmare.

£50M for Stones seems like a bargain next to this one

One is a CB coming off a terrible season and the other is a 20 goal a season striker. Not really comparable at all.

[petre.ispirescu 4,928]

1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

You are right Petre. In one aspect.

I, at least, have no idea about the amounts, or clauses in the transfer agreement which took Rom to The Toffees. I had previously read the 20% figure on this forum however. Was it you who posted it? Anyway, asuming it, and the other clauses you mention, are accurate then of course Everton would factor these into their thinking. That's par for the course.

I wonder though how you come to know such details?

Where I would argue that you are not right is in suggesting that the factors you talk about make the deal less expensive for Chelsea. All of those things; the balance of the original fee, the 20% sell on number, and the sundry bonuses, are all Chelsea assets. Giving them up is just the same as spending them.

I still think the best thing for Chelsea to do is allow Rom to join someone else, collect the money we are owed by Everton and our share of the huge fee the other club pays. Of course no one else will pay such a huge fee. No one Rom wants to join anyway.

No, it wasn't me. I've just read about it a couple of days ago on different web-sites and comment sections. It appears that Chelsea has introduced the 20% sell on clause in both De Bruyne and Lukaku's contracts at that time. No one knew about the sell on clause in De Bruyne's contract either, until City closed the deal and Chelsea received £12m out of it.

On the other clauses -I've read in the The Times:

Quote

Chelsea are confident that they will be able to secure Lukaku’s return for a lower fee, partly because of the structure of his transfer to Everton. It is understood that Everton did not pay the full £28 million up front and Chelsea are due to receive further payments. A sell-on clause will also be activated should Lukaku move to another club for more than £28 million, as he has hit certain goalscoring and appearance targets. While the precise details of that clause are not known, Chelsea will use it and the money they are owed to demand a discount.

I know what you mean by saying that Chelsea should wait for someone else to buy him and cash in those clauses, but I feel the club and Conte are determined to take him back and Lukaku has his mind set for a return as well. Can see him handing a transfer request should this drag too long. 

And to be fair, I don't know why would Everton want to play hardball on Lukaku & Stones' transfers with less than two weeks before the EPL kick-off. It's crystal clear the two of them want out and prolonging this would do them more harm than good. Should Lukaku and Stones leave, which they will, no doubt about it, Everton are left with two poor back-up strikers and a 33 yo alternative for Stones. They will cash in big money for the two and must act quick if they want to find decent replacements. I think they are stupid if they plan to drag this until late August.

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

5 hours ago, CHOULO19 said:

What part of our preseason has made you think that we'd play with two pure strikers? So far has used RLC, Oscar and Hazard in the second striker position. Incredibly doubtful that we'd play with both Costa and Lukaku. At the end of the day, Conte is an Italian manager, he won't leave the team outnumbered in midfield.

Your main striker having to play with his back to goal is not just related to your own tactics. Most teams in the EPL will play a low black with 10 men behind the ball against us. Can't play off the shoulders of defenders against them. 

Goal stats mean little. Strikers are no longer there just for goals. Even if you neglect the differences in the leagues and positions, Morata's role at Juve was much much more than just goals. Lukaku would NOT start ahead of Morata in Juve's system, and by the early looks of it, nor in Chelsea's. 

You make it sound like we have two pure strikers on our roster, we don't. The interest in Lukaku at 75m() and the assertion that Costa isn't going anywhere is enough for me to its likely this will be the case more often then not.

As I've addressed in another post, how we set up, in my head at least, will nullify this problem. if you stretch that defense by using this width we've been playing with it will take pressure off of the strikers and provide them with more room to operate in the channels. It will also give mean less pressure on the ball at the point of attack because there are more bodies up the field to account for. That's what I saw in the preseason and why I think Lukaku and Costa can coexist. 

Goal stats mean little? Are you joking? You have to be joking... When we won the title with Costa banging them in what else did he do but score? 

Its about presence in the box and ability to score goals. Morata at Juve played under an entirely different system than the one we are trying to employ here.

Are you advocating that our interest in Lukaku is not Conte's?

 

[Gilvorak 3,734]

Look, we already have 2 £30m strikers at the club. Our biggest weakness right now is our pathetic defence not a lack of another £30m+ striker when we already have two. If the likes of Dybala, Neymar & Suarez were available then I'd be all for the big money move but they aren't.

 

Willian Costa/Batshuayi Cuadrado

Hazard

Cesc Kante

That's an above average midfield & attack. Not anything amazing but more than decent.

 

A backline of:-

Azpilicueta Terry Cahill Ivanovic

on the other hand is beyond pathetic. Ideally none of them would be starters.

[nono 791]

4 hours ago, Gilvorak said:

Look, we already have 2 £30m strikers at the club. Our biggest weakness right now is our pathetic defence not a lack of another £30m+ striker when we already have two. If the likes of Dybala, Neymar & Suarez were available then I'd be all for the big money move but they aren't.

 

Willian Costa/Batshuayi Cuadrado

Hazard

Cesc Kante

That's an above average midfield & attack. Not anything amazing but more than decent.

 

A backline of:-

Azpilicueta Terry Cahill Ivanovic

on the other hand is beyond pathetic. Ideally none of them would be starters.

Tell this to the board. They live in their own fantasy world.

[Sideshow Luiz 2,310]

8 hours ago, Blue Colored Sky said:

You know what's the most surprising ? Conte personally called Tevez to ask him to join here but Carlito said no. And we're turning to Lukaku then.

Now think about it how different are Tevez and Lukaku. Tevez is like the exemplary of second striker role, he has everything that's needed to play there on the other hand you have Lukaku who is one of the worst second strikers I can think of, he has little to none qualities to play such role. My mind can't handle it, how you can go from perfect option to play SS to the worst ?

Don't forget about Morata who we were interested in earlier.  

Morata, Tevez, Lukaku

One of these is least like the others,

[Jype 6,398]

5 hours ago, Chelsea Legend 11 said:

Goal stats mean little? Are you joking? You have to be joking... 

Goals of course decide games, but need to look at the bigger picture. I don't see you advocating the signing of Ighalo from Watford or Defoe from Sunderland, yet they're both also decent goalscorers in the Premier League at lower level clubs. Hell, if we're going for a donkey who scores goals but does little else we should buy Javier Hernandez from Bayer Leverkusen, the lad scored 26 in 40 last season but would cost only a tiny fraction of Lukaku's price and also comes with the mythical "proven in the PL" tag many seem to appreciate.

In modern football simple goal poachers with very little footballing ability apart from scoring are very, very rare at top clubs. Like someone said earlier, there's a reason why Mario Gomez was dumped from Bayern despite a goalscoring record almost second to none.

You asked earlier for alternatives if Lukaku isn't bought, and dismissed the idea of buying no one by saying it would be like giving up on the whole season and possibly risking the club's future. I'd say it's quite the contrary. Is your memory really that short, have you completely forgotten how the nightmare of Fernando Torres deeply hurt the club five years ago? He turned out to be a big money flop and took three and a half years to get rid of him because of the huge investment and absurd wages he had, and through that whole fiasco the club avoided "marquee signings" in the striker department because for starters the club couldn't afford any and also because the board were afraid of another massive flop.

Now, which one you think is more of a risk: buying Lukaku for £75M and no doubt £250-300K a week wages (Raiola won't allow a player that expensive to sign on reasonable wages, as the hands down most expensive player in club's history he's gonna demand highest wages too) with the chance of him being as mediocre as many are predicting and again like Torres impossible to replace even when better strikers were to be available in another year or two, or alternatively just stick with what we got and see where that leads us? It's not like Costa, Michy, Traore, Remy (with Hazard and maybe even RLC also being capable of playing as the deeper striker) are so shit that it's impossible to make top4 this season as long as the defense gets sorted out first.

If Lukaku is bought for £75M and massive wages that's going to mean no other big striker signings for a good few years. Lukaku at the moment couldn't be further away from a proven elite player who can handle the pressure of being the top dog at a top club with CL ambitions and there's absolutely no way of telling if he'll ever become that. Maybe he will, maybe he won't but that my friend is a £75M gamble I wouldn't take because if it backfires things will get really ugly really fast.

[the wes 7,212]

ROMELU LUKAKU: CAREER STATS 

Anderlecht (2009-11): 73 games, 33 goals

Chelsea (2011-14): 15 games, 0 goals

West Brom (loan): 38 games, 17 goals

Everton (loan): 33 games, 16 goals

Everton (2014-present): 94 games, 44 goals

[the wes 7,212]

This lukaku rumour is not going away there must be some truth in it 

[the wes 7,212]

On good day lukaku = drogba on bad day lukaku = heskey 

[Unionjack 7,531]

16 minutes ago, the wes said:

This lukaku rumour is not going away there must be some truth in it 

Its only the Star so?

Romelu Lukaku to Chelsea: Everton furious with Antonio Conte’s transfer pursuit

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/535145/Chelsea-Transfer-News-Romelu-Lukaku-Everton-contract-talks-Ronald-Koeman-Gossip-Latest

 

 

[Fernando 6,455]

35 minutes ago, the wes said:

ROMELU LUKAKU: CAREER STATS 

Anderlecht (2009-11): 73 games, 33 goals

Chelsea (2011-14): 15 games, 0 goals

West Brom (loan): 38 games, 17 goals

Everton (loan): 33 games, 16 goals

Everton (2014-present): 94 games, 44 goals

0 goals for Chelsea. 

Expect to be about the same when he comes. 

 

[RuudiGullit 112]

As I said, When Koeman went to Feyenoord, he started being the sellout cunt like he is today. 

[nyikolajevics 2,573]

2 minutes ago, Fernando said:

0 goals for Chelsea. 

Expect to be about the same when he comes. 

 

Very fair.. He was 18, about 13 out of this 15 performances was 10-15 minutes as a sub, usually when we were down. He pretty much didn't get a single chance to prove his worth back then.