Romelu Lukaku

[Beigl 1,387]

I really, really, really find it absurd to believe that there is somebody on that Chelsea board right now nodding his/her head thinking '65 million quid for Lukaku? Mhm, let's do this.'

Seriously hope this is BS.

Maybe Diego wants back to Atletico this summer and made his mind clear to the board behind the scenes?

I hope not, because I think Costa>Lukaku

[Pizy 18,368]

Hope it doesn't happen, but imagine Costa back at Atleti. He and Griezmann together under Simeone. Fucking hell what a duo. They'd be CL favorites.

If only we could see that partnership here... 

[lucio 5,418]

11 minutes ago, Pizy said:

Hope it doesn't happen, but imagine Costa back at Atleti. He and Griezmann together under Simeone. Fucking hell what a duo. They'd be CL favorites.

If only we could see that partnership here... 

fat chance, more likely to have cahill spamming long balls to pelle

[Blue Colored Sky 1,807]

It all makes so little sense. So all that money saving, all that penny pinching, all that cheaper alternatives to now move quickly and pay 4th highest transfer fee in history for a player the club owned just 2 years ago ?

I don't believe it at all. Unless the price is significantly smaller.

[Melanicus 5,208]

3 minutes ago, Blue Colored Sky said:

It all makes so little sense. So all that money saving, all that penny pinching, all that cheaper alternatives to now move quickly and pay 4th highest transfer fee in history for a player the club owned just 2 years ago ?

I don't believe it at all. Unless the price is significantly smaller.

It is smaller.

We will pay 35 mil for him. We get 30 mil in bonuses back.

[Blue Colored Sky 1,807]

1 minute ago, Melanicus said:

It is smaller.

We will pay 35 mil for him. We get 30 mil in bonuses back.

Huh ? Where are you getting that from ?

 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,890]

9 minutes ago, Melanicus said:

It is smaller.

We will pay 35 mil for him. We get 30 mil in bonuses back.

You state that as known fact. Sounds good if true and would explain a lot. We're just helping Everton drum up interest in the player. Let someone else buy him and bank the cash. Far rather add £30m to the transfer kitty, than Lukaku to the squad.

[Melanicus 5,208]

12 minutes ago, Blue Colored Sky said:

Huh ? Where are you getting that from ?

 

 

6 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

You state that as known fact. Sounds good if true but, if so, let someone else buy him and bank the cash. Far rather add £30m to the transfer kitty, than Lukaku to the squad.

This of course explains it all. We're helping Everton drum up interest in the player.

I think you understood me wrong.

We are paying "only" 35 mil for him, because we already got 30 mil back when we sold him.

So in reality we are paying "only" 35 mil for him, not 65.

[Fulham Broadway 16,835]

Give him another go but given the ridiculous amount of money they wanted for Stones, I dread to think what they will want for this bloke. Appreciate hes improved, but he was young and raw and he couldn't trap a bag of cement in a Chelsea shirt. Anyway, its not move I see happening. If it does, it will highlight even more the complete lack of direction we have.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,890]

11 minutes ago, Melanicus said:

 

I think you understood me wrong.

We are paying "only" 35 mil for him, because we already got 30 mil back when we sold him.

So in reality we are paying "only" 35 mil for him, not 65.

That's not actually what you said so it's no surprise if there is some misunderstanding.

Unusually the clubs made Rom's £28m fee public when he joined the Toffees so that's not quite £30m.

My guess is that, looked at in this way, the arithmetic is more complicated than you have said since, if we are to include the fee received from Everton, then why not also the fee paid to Anderlect and those presumably collected from Everton and West Brom in respect of Rom's load deals.

[Spike 12,049]

15 minutes ago, Melanicus said:

 

I think you understood me wrong.

We are paying "only" 35 mil for him, because we already got 30 mil back when we sold him.

So in reality we are paying "only" 35 mil for him, not 65.

You are forgetting the initial 10,000,000 to Anderlecht. So the equation would be 10-30+65 which is 45. 

That's a lot of money, 45,000,000 pounds. But is never that simple because in the mean time the club has spent that money received from Lukaku's transfer. So no matter, it will always be 65,000,000.

[LondonsFinest 692]

While I agree, Lukaku is nowhere near 65 mil. quid, do people generally believe we can get any quality striker below 50-60 mil. 

No, I am not Lukaku's biggest fan, quite contrary, I just don't believe any other ST would cost less. People believe Higuain or Morata would be that player, but no. De Laurentis won't let Gonzalo go for less and this is his best season, which he will never replicate. Let's be honest, if you watch Higuain you know he can be very frustrating at times. Samo goes for Morata. Top talent, who goes missing at times. Yes, he is very combinative, technical and etc. Thing is he would cost a massive sum and we don't know what he could turn in, in England. Truth be told, there is no GUARANTEED top striker out on the market, who is worth a big sum of money and is a guaranteed success.

[Blue Colored Sky 1,807]

16 minutes ago, LondonsFinest said:

While I agree, Lukaku is nowhere near 65 mil. quid, do people generally believe we can get any quality striker below 50-60 mil. 

No, I am not Lukaku's biggest fan, quite contrary, I just don't believe any other ST would cost less. People believe Higuain or Morata would be that player, but no. De Laurentis won't let Gonzalo go for less and this is his best season, which he will never replicate. Let's be honest, if you watch Higuain you know he can be very frustrating at times. Samo goes for Morata. Top talent, who goes missing at times. Yes, he is very combinative, technical and etc. Thing is he would cost a massive sum and we don't know what he could turn in, in England. Truth be told, there is no GUARANTEED top striker out on the market, who is worth a big sum of money and is a guaranteed success.

Yes we can. Lyon try to get rid of that Lacazette contract and are in need of some cash to start pay back for that stadium they built.

 

[Madmax 9,219]

20 minutes ago, LondonsFinest said:

While I agree, Lukaku is nowhere near 65 mil. quid, do people generally believe we can get any quality striker below 50-60 mil. 

No, I am not Lukaku's biggest fan, quite contrary, I just don't believe any other ST would cost less. People believe Higuain or Morata would be that player, but no. De Laurentis won't let Gonzalo go for less and this is his best season, which he will never replicate. Let's be honest, if you watch Higuain you know he can be very frustrating at times. Samo goes for Morata. Top talent, who goes missing at times. Yes, he is very combinative, technical and etc. Thing is he would cost a massive sum and we don't know what he could turn in, in England. Truth be told, there is no GUARANTEED top striker out on the market, who is worth a big sum of money and is a guaranteed success.

^ Of course there's no guaranteed success. What is?

The Lukaku story makes no sense on a sporting level, which is why the fee being spoken about just stands out so much more. Unless Costa is definitely, 100% off (for which there's little credible reporting that I've read), why should we settle for a similar but inferior player? And that too at a record price?

In terms of names, we should be all over Lacazette. They turned down 31m for him from West Ham. Up that to 40, hell 45 if that's what it takes, and bring him here. Because in this case the skillset justifies the money. 

[LondonsFinest 692]

25 minutes ago, Blue Colored Sky said:

Yes we can. Lyon try to get rid of that Lacazette contract and are in need of some cash to start pay back for that stadium they built.

 

I put Icardi and Lacazette on the same stage. Great, but definitely not World Class. I am talking about WC strikers. And while I agree, he can grow into it and would love Lacazette here, he is a risk. Same as Lukaku. As I said, I want Lukaku the least out of the strikers we are linked to, but I believe people are massively underrating him.

[LAM09 6,744]

I put Icardi and Lacazette on the same stage. Great, but definitely not World Class. I am talking about WC strikers. And while I agree, he can grow into it and would love Lacazette here, he is a risk. Same as Lukaku. As I said, I want Lukaku the least out of the strikers we are linked to, but I believe people are massively underrating him.

His conversation rate isn't good enough for a top team IMO. He isn't anywhere near Higuain.

I personally hope we go for a more agile CF. Costa and Griezmann would be the perfect match (I know it ain't going to happen, but I'll dream).

[Blue Colored Sky 1,807]

38 minutes ago, LondonsFinest said:

I put Icardi and Lacazette on the same stage. Great, but definitely not World Class. I am talking about WC strikers. And while I agree, he can grow into it and would love Lacazette here, he is a risk. Same as Lukaku. As I said, I want Lukaku the least out of the strikers we are linked to, but I believe people are massively underrating him.

The only world-class striker that is somewhat available is Higuain.

Lacazette is not a world-class player. His output is very good for the last 3 seasons though when he was moved to play as a centre-forward. He is quick, agile, strong on his feet, can link up with others, has neat technique and well score goals regularly. His football IQ may be questioned and he may be too selfish. But in worst case scenario he will be next Remy with far less injuries. Which is not something bad. Most importantly he will bring goals, goals, goals.

And we're in need of goals, goals, goals.

 

[Styles 9,790]

I really can't tell you how depressed I'd be if we signed Lukaku.

Honestly, a move like that would alienate me somewhat.