Chelsea Transfers

[killer1257 3,282]

9 minutes ago, Jype said:

What's the logic behind this? Getting 21yo Haaland is fine but 28yo Lukaku destroys the youth?

I never said I want Haaland either

[Pizy 18,368]

Can we at least get Koundé in so he can have a couple weeks of training to settle in… 🙄

[Jype 6,398]

8 minutes ago, killer1257 said:

I never said I want Haaland either

So what's your solution? Do nothing to address the problems up front and just pray for Werner, Havertz find their shooting boots for the next few seasons and that Broja and Soonsup-Bell develop enough over the next 3-4 years to be regulars at age 21-22?

JSB is 17 and Broja is 19. If anything, getting a 28yo Lukaku should be great for them. By the time Lukaku is 'finished' (which most here think is in 2-3 years because all footballers supposedly turn shit after 30) they're still at a decent enough age to start getting more regular game time. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Jype

[milka 3,346]

€120m for Lukaku  - I don't know what this hype is about Lukaku when you have Haaland on the table but you send like that 120m for Romelu 

 

 

[Clockwork 1,794]

Honestly I don’t believe the Lukaku reports, from my understanding of this club behavior this is not consistent with past behaviors. 
 

 

[milka 3,346]

 

Inter is your club Lukaku stay there . 

[whats happening 1,525]

2 hours ago, Vesper said:

yep. started to slow down as he approached 31yo

if same things happen with Lukaku, we are dumping out what will likely be £120/130m (WELL over £200m when salary and fees/add-ons are tossed in) for 2 prime years, 3 max, and a rapid decline with fuckall for resale value

shit business that is

you also wanted us to sell kante two years ago because he was injured and he is declining physically..

[Razer Sharp 4]

Someone please Close the Transfer window before this deal goes through please , i don't wanna see Lukaku at our club this is a horrible deal 

[Vesper 28,796]

10 minutes ago, whats happening said:

you also wanted us to sell kante two years ago because he was injured and he is declining physically..

Sarri damn near destroyed him

and at that time it would have been over £100m

Tuchel re-invigorated his career, plus he thankfully recovered from a horrid run of injuries

if Lamps had stayed and just lumped on we would not even be having this  interaction

both Sarri and Lampard completely misused him

my recco of selling was based of that continued mis-use and his continuing run of injuries

I stand by it FOR THAT TIME

I put myself out there A LOT, so I am bound to be wrong on occasion

but overall I would stack my record up against yours any day of the goddamn week

[ZAPHOD2319 4,477]

This deal does not make a lot of cash for Inter. They still owe Man Utd 40M for Lukaku and a 25% sell on fee.

[Vesper 28,796]

21 minutes ago, whats happening said:

you also wanted us to sell kante two years ago because he was injured and he is declining physically..

also what part of IF in that post do you not comprehend?

[Vesper 28,796]

3 minutes ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

This deal does not make a lot of cash for Inter. They still owe Man Utd 40M for Lukaku and a 25% sell on fee.

40m for the transfer (staggered over multiple years I guess)?

[Jype 6,398]

1 minute ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

This deal does not make a lot of cash for Inter. They still owe Man Utd 40M for Lukaku and a 25% sell on fee.

Would assume any sell-on clause (if one even exists, let alone at 25%) only covers the profit Inter make on the transfer. Inter paid around €75M for Lukaku so at €110-120M the sell-on fee wouldn't be all that much, around €10M at most and probably even less if the percentage is lower than 25%. Do you have a source saying the clause is there?

It would have been crazy for Inter to accept a 25% sell-on clause for the full sale price, because it would mean they have to sell for €100M just to break even and if Lukaku had failed at Inter he'd have been impossible to sell because Man Utd would have taken 25% off the price which would already have been below what they paid for the big man themselves.

[whats happening 1,525]

6 minutes ago, Vesper said:

but overall I would stack my record up against yours any day of the goddamn week

sorry but i dont have the time to write the same essay here every other day.

[Last Sicarius 610]

https://twitter.com/AlfredoPedulla/status/1422525869936062468

100mln euro + Werner and i would drive him myself to Milan 😅

Edited August 3, 2021 by Last Sicarius

[Vesper 28,796]

2 minutes ago, whats happening said:

sorry but i dont have the time to write the same essay here every other day.

My essay:

Sod off.

 

[Magic Lamps 11,653]

Inter would be absolutely mad not to sell Lukaku for 120m. their biggest ever signing, right on his peak and they get the chance to even make a profit from him? Only one winner if this trainwreck of a deal goes through.

Kounde and Lukaku would be 2017 window reloaded.

[Vesper 28,796]

5 minutes ago, Jype said:

Would assume any sell-on clause (if one even exists, let alone at 25%) only covers the profit Inter make on the transfer. Inter paid around €75M for Lukaku so at €110-120M the sell-on fee wouldn't be all that much, around €10M at most and probably even less if the percentage is lower than 25%. Do you have a source saying the clause is there?

It would have been crazy for Inter to accept a 25% sell-on clause for the full sale price, because it would mean they have to sell for €100M just to break even and if Lukaku had failed at Inter he'd have been impossible to sell because Man Utd would have taken 25% off the price which would already have been below what they paid for the big man themselves.

the % is unknown

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/manchester-united-city-transfers-lukaku-20717781

I would be surprised of it was 25%