Romelu Lukaku

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

Just now, Gilvorak said:

I'd rather have no one in all honesty. Throwing an absurd amount of money at Lukaku because he's the only available striker is absurd.

So you're willing to sacrifice an entire season and perhaps start the managerial merry-go round again because you don't want to buy Lukaku? Do you think the price for a striker will soon drop? Morata scored 9 goals and Real Madrid want 75m for him. 

When you get over the number(which in isolation is absurd) is he not one of the better strikers in the prem? I say Kane, Aguero, Sturridge? Vardy? Costa, then Lukaku somewhere in there. Given his age and association credit he adds value beyond just goalscoring.

[xPetrCechx 13,548]

4 hours ago, Pizy said:

Man, we might see the first TalkChelsea crash from server overload in years if this move happens. It'll be hilarious. 

I miss those days. 

Me too 

[xPetrCechx 13,548]

[Blue Armour 4,173]

2 hours ago, xPetrCechx said:

 

Hell...if you thought that the Pogba transfer fee was ridiculous, this one tops that or at least, comes pretty close. Its not a surprise that Mino Raiola is a common factor in both of these transfers.

For that kind of money, clubs like Madrid have gone after the likes of Ronaldo and Kaka...players who have proven themselves at the highest level. Even our own big money transfers in the past, such as with Torres and Shevchenko, involved players of that mold.

 

[CHOULO19 24,332]

10 hours ago, Chelsea Legend 11 said:

And what part of the preseason so far have you seen us utilizing our strikers with their backs to goal? Everything I've seen had our strikers playing off the shoulders of defenders looking to get in behind. That part of Lukaku's game is undeniable, he is an absolute nightmare in this instance. 

I will also agree his link up is poor but if the scenario of having Lukaku and Costa marauding in and around the 18 while being serviced by Hazard, Cesc and Willian isn't appealing I can't be sure what you guys are looking for from our 4-2-4 system? 

He's homegrown, a Chelsea supporter, he's scored a boatload of goals already.... What striker in world football can say that they've scored 50 premier league goals before turning 23? Have you seen the going rate for strikers these days? Morata scored 9 goals last year and Real Madrid want 75m for him.... LOL. 

Its not the perfect scenario but given our already shaky association status and Costa's injury woes, coupled with our inability to score last year I'm finding it hard to have a problem with Costa and Lukaku with Michy coming off the bench. 

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. 

[CHOULO19 24,332]

9 hours ago, nadavTKL said:

So Hazard as 1 of the 2 strikers? then who plays LW?

We need Hazard from the wing, from the attaking midffeld area, we dont have other options but him.

On the other hand, if Hazard plays LW who plays second striker? That's a position that is arguably more important tactically than LW. 

It (worryingly) seems that Conte rates Cuadrado and Pedro. I said somewhere else (Pedro thread iirc) that unless something unexpected happens, we'll probably be looking to sign a winger in the next two windows. 

[lucio 5,418]

22 minutes 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. 

Costa can be ss , like he was next to falcao

[Chelsea4 1,521]

7 hours ago, Hybrid Angel said:

Nobody seems to remember the last and a certain individual who had 'passion' for us and ended up putting us back a few years and coaching one of our biggest rivals? 

Please. Passion shouldn't be considered a sole reason to have someone in the team. Lukaku is not good enough for us and even if he is, that means we're not as good as we think of ourselves. 

Lukaku>Costa.

[Chelsea4 1,521]

Chelsea to offer Everton £60m plus Loic Remy for striker Romelu Lukaku (by @sjstandardsport)

[Chelsea4 1,521]

Conte wanted Lukaku back in 2014 when he was the manager of Juventus.

 

[CHOULO19 24,332]

1 hour ago, lucio said:

Costa can be ss , like he was next to falcao

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

[Blue Colored Sky 1,807]

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 ?

[nadavTKL 1,787]

2 hours ago, CHOULO19 said:

On the other hand, if Hazard plays LW who plays second striker? That's a position that is arguably more important tactically than LW. 

It (worryingly) seems that Conte rates Cuadrado and Pedro. I said somewhere else (Pedro thread iirc) that unless something unexpected happens, we'll probably be looking to sign a winger in the next two windows. 

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.

[DYC. 7,542]

This is not true. This is not true. This is not true.

[petre.ispirescu 4,928]

1 hour ago, Blue Armour said:

 

Hell...if you thought that the Pogba transfer fee was ridiculous, this one tops that or at least, comes pretty close. Its not a surprise that Mino Raiola is a common factor in both of these transfers.

For that kind of money, clubs like Madrid have gone after the likes of Ronaldo and Kaka...players who have proven themselves at the highest level. Even our own big money transfers in the past, such as with Torres and Shevchenko, involved players of that mold.

 

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.

[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 5,776]

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.