We sold a perfectly fine striker giving us 15 goals a season atleast for 28mil. the statement was made in that context.

Whats surprising is that the people laughing at lukaku are the ones bigging this transfer up. Well not surprising but sure funny.

 

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. 

 

Lukaku never scored a goal for Chelsea so you cannot state as fact he was "giving us 15 goals a season at least" because that's not true it's conjecture.

 

The £28m raised from selling a player who was our 3rd/4th choice striker allowed us to buy Costa who was the first striker in 5 years to score 20 league goals in a league season and helping us win our first league title in 5 years also.

 

So I'm not really sure how we've ended up with a more expensive, lesser option? 

 

The sale of Lukaku and (forthcoming) purchase of Batshuayi aren't one and the same. 

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. 

 

Lukaku never scored a goal for Chelsea so you cannot state as fact he was "giving us 15 goals a season at least" because that's not true it's conjecture.

 

The £28m raised from selling a player who was our 3rd/4th choice striker allowed us to buy Costa who was the first striker in 5 years to score 20 league goals in a league season and helping us win our first league title in 5 years also.

 

So I'm not really sure how we've ended up with a more expensive, lesser option? 

 

The sale of Lukaku and (forthcoming) purchase of Batshuayi aren't one and the same. 

Lukaku did not score a goal for chelsea because he was not given a true oppurtunity. Its like saying Messi wont be a good player for chelsea because he has not scored for chelsea. He deserved a chance and definitely more than playing against bayern with a man-down as a sub.

 

Costa was bought before lukaku was sold and jose wanted lukaku to stay. Lukaku's sale had no impact on buying costa. This probably the biggest myth. Lukaku's replacement was REMY, the 10.5 million always-injured mediocre player. Costa helped us in winning our first league title in 5 years, lukaku could have been an important part in stopping us from being the worst champions EVER and having our worst season in the roman-era specially for half a season when costa seemed fat, disinterested and honestly not even championship material.

 

The sale of lukaku (and his constant criticism) and the purch ase of Batshuayi exposes a lot of things. People have tagged lukaku as the "belgian darren bent", and ridicule him even though he is one of the highest goal-scorers in PL in the last 4 years, yet people see "potential" in batshuayi who is way below lukaku and yet only 5 months younger. more-over, like i said before, Costa was going to be bought regardless of lukaku. That was clear even after the defeat to ATM at SB. Lukaku should have been our no.2. and he should have been here now instead of us buying a player who simply is not as good and more expensive.

Lukaku didn't want to be our no 2

He asked to leave

It's not that hard to understand

You pay to go on twitter ? or more specifically how do you get paid to say it on twitter

 

links

Edited June 29, 201610 yr by pacquiao

Lukaku didn't want to be our no 2

He asked to leave

It's not that hard to understand

 

Lukaku saw Torres and Ba and bottled it! 

Lukaku didn't want to be our no 2

He asked to leave

It's not that hard to understand

And whose fault is that?

Torres was started ahead of lukaku. Hell even schurrle was started ahead of lukaku at OT. And then Jose goes on to buy a 33 year old semi-retired etoo. In a world cup year. Well, any ambitious football player would have done exactly what lukaku did to play at the biggest stage in the world - Fifa world cup.

Despite jose continously yapping on about "young eggs" and "little horses", he lost the biggest oppurtunity to bud in a very prolific striker who could easily have given us atleast 10 good years. And what exactly did etoo get us? A trophy-less season? More controversies with Jose and his age remark. And most importantly, lukaku's trust that he could ever get a spot with jose at the head.

 

Lukaku asked to leave because jose would not have made him his no.2. There would have been no rotation and the underperformers, no matter what, would have kept playing even if we were languishing 17th in the league. Whats worse is that all of this actually did happen. So honestly, I cant blame Lukaku(/kdb/mata/schurrle/salah/cuadrado/luis/bertrand) to have some self respect and "ask to leave" so that they could actually play. 

Edited June 29, 201610 yr by didierforever

And whose fault is that?

Torres was started ahead of lukaku. Hell even schurrle was started ahead of lukaku at OT. And then Jose goes on to buy a 33 year old semi-retired etoo. In a world cup year. Well, any ambitious football player would have done exactly what lukaku did to play at the biggest stage in the world - Fifa world cup.

Despite jose continously yapping on about "young eggs" and "little horses", he lost the biggest oppurtunity to bud in a very prolific striker who could easily have given us atleast 10 good years. And what exactly did etoo get us? A trophy-less season? More controversies with Jose and his age remark. And most importantly, lukaku's trust that he could ever get a spot with jose at the head.

Lukaku asked to leave because jose would not have made him his no.2. There would have been no rotation and the underperformers, no matter what, would have kept playing even if we were languishing 17th in the league. Whats worse is that all of this actually did happen. So honestly, I cant blame Lukaku(/kdb/mata/schurrle/salah/cuadrado/luis/bertrand) to have some self respect and "ask to leave" so that they could actually play.

Lukakus.

If he wanted to be at a big club then he should have been prepared to work for it not throw his toys out the pram and demand to move clubs.

He's simply not a good enough footballer to be requesting things like that, his attitude stank and we got a far better striker in Costa who won us the league.

Look I get it you like Lukaku and rate him highly, most of us don't and welcome signing someone who looks very talented. Lukaku is in the past, this boys the future. It's time to move on

Lukaku cant handle competition, which is why he will never make it at a top club, he would rather play for a weak team where he is gauranteed to start then a top team where he can test himself! Batshuayi is a young ambitious striker who wont bottle it like Lukaku, and Michy doesnt have a truly awful touch! exciting times ahead.

Edited June 29, 201610 yr by pacquiao

As much as I enjoyed Eto'o's stint with us, I don't think it was unreasonable of Lukaku to think he had earned a spot in or around the first team considering his performances during the previous year on loan, and especially so considering the paltry performances of the centre forwards we had.

 

Bear in mind that he had just scored 17 goals for a West Brom side whose main creative forces were Graham Dorrans and Chris Brunt. That was almost double the goalscoring record of both Ba and Torres combined, both of whom had Mata, Hazard, Oscar and Lampard providing for them.

Lukakus.

If he wanted to be at a big club then he should have been prepared to work for it not throw his toys out the pram and demand to move clubs.

He's simply not a good enough footballer to be requesting things like that, his attitude stank and we got a far better striker in Costa who won us the league.

Look I get it you like Lukaku and rate him highly, most of us don't and welcome signing someone who looks very talented. Lukaku is in the past, this boys the future. It's time to move on

So it was his attitude to ask to be started over the over his prime torres, an over the hill etoo and a bang average demba ba, that stunk the place up?

 

Given his talent and what he had shown the previous season with a team like WBA who were so bereft of any talent entitled him to a starting spot in case we had not bought rooney or any other worthwhile striker back then. We did not, and yet he had to watch schurrle start as a striker at OT. 

 

How I rate lukaku is immaterial here. It cant always be the other person's fault. It cant always be lukaku who did not want to fight, or kdb or bertand or mata or luis or this and that. I respect Jose's acheivement but he was at fault for most of these players leaving us and making us a squad filled with talent to a squad having no talent.

 

We were buying rooney even with lukaku in the squad. Hell we got etoo with lukaku in the squad. Why do people keep saying we got costa in place of lukaku. Thats the mentality which has already hurt us. Any PL winning side/CL playing side needs a 20/22 player squad to fight at all ends. We did not. So, NO, we did not get costa in place of lukaku.

 

Yes, Batshuayi looks talented, I agree. But its rather surprising that you dont rate a striker way ahead in his development, already a PL proven goal-scorer and literally of the same age, as the one we bought.

I will support Batshuayi as much as i supported any other chelsea player once the season starts or even when he is officially announced. But currently, I cant get over the fact that the 13/14 roster that looked so promising has been absolutely RUINED and WASTED.

Edited June 29, 201610 yr by didierforever

As much as I enjoyed Eto'o's stint with us, I don't think it was unreasonable of Lukaku to think he had earned a spot in or around the first team considering his performances during the previous year on loan, and especially so considering the paltry performances of the centre forwards we had.

 

Bear in mind that he had just scored 17 goals for a West Brom side whose main creative forces were Graham Dorrans and Chris Brunt. That was almost double the goalscoring record of both Ba and Torres combined, both of whom had Mata, Hazard, Oscar and Lampard providing for them.

Voice of reason!!!

no idea mate, but I think your guess is as good as any.  Can't wait to hear Savage try and have a go at it.  Ah, where's Andy Gray when you want him?  Paulo Ferr-ar-ah

 

KRC can probably let us know

 

Almost.

 

 

Bat-tsjoe-wa-hie.

 

 

 

 

Or Mitchy.

As much as I enjoyed Eto'o's stint with us, I don't think it was unreasonable of Lukaku to think he had earned a spot in or around the first team considering his performances during the previous year on loan, and especially so considering the paltry performances of the centre forwards we had.

Bear in mind that he had just scored 17 goals for a West Brom side whose main creative forces were Graham Dorrans and Chris Brunt. That was almost double the goalscoring record of both Ba and Torres combined, both of whom had Mata, Hazard, Oscar and Lampard providing for them.

All he had to do was wait for his chance then take it. If he wasn't confident of ousting Eto'o or Torres then that says it all.

He was a young player with 1 decent season behind him coming to one of the biggest clubs in Europe. We had CL, La Liga, World Cup and Euorpean champion strikers (albeit not in their pomp) going for the same position, he was never just going to walk into that side however if he waited and took his chance he could have taken over their spot.

Chelsea didn't force Lukaku to leave, he choose not to fight for a spot so went to a 'safe' club where he is now wanting out of. He won't walk into any top European clubs starting line up this time either because he's simply not that good a player to do so

Lukaku did not score a goal for chelsea because he was not given a true oppurtunity. Its like saying Messi wont be a good player for chelsea because he has not scored for chelsea. He deserved a chance and definitely more than playing against bayern with a man-down as a sub.

Costa was bought before lukaku was sold and jose wanted lukaku to stay. Lukaku's sale had no impact on buying costa. This probably the biggest myth. Lukaku's replacement was REMY, the 10.5 million always-injured mediocre player. Costa helped us in winning our first league title in 5 years, lukaku could have been an important part in stopping us from being the worst champions EVER and having our worst season in the roman-era specially for half a season when costa seemed fat, disinterested and honestly not even championship material.

The sale of lukaku (and his constant criticism) and the purch ase of Batshuayi exposes a lot of things. People have tagged lukaku as the "belgian darren bent", and ridicule him even though he is one of the highest goal-scorers in PL in the last 4 years, yet people see "potential" in batshuayi who is way below lukaku and yet only 5 months younger. more-over, like i said before, Costa was going to be bought regardless of lukaku. That was clear even after the defeat to ATM at SB. Lukaku should have been our no.2. and he should have been here now instead of us buying a player who simply is not as good and more expensive.

So Lukaku who I think had about 15-20 appearances overall for Chelsea "never got a chance".

Yet Bertrand Traore was relegated to 5th choice striker after Patos signing and what did he do? He utilised the small chances he got and with a few promising sub appearances climbed right up to second choice, so in other words Traore makes absolute mince meat of the myth Lukaku never got a chance.

Lukaku in his first few months at Chelsea got brought on while we were losing to both United and Arsenal, he also started against Fulham, Everton and Liverpool, all of which were top ten sides that season, he had more than enough opportunity to show a bit of promise and earn some more chances just like Traore did, and he f**kes every single one of them up.

So it was his attitude to ask to be started over the over his prime torres, an over the hill etoo and a bang average demba ba, that stunk the place up?

Given his talent and what he had shown the previous season with a team like WBA who were so bereft of any talent entitled him to a starting spot in case we had not bought rooney or any other worthwhile striker back then. We did not, and yet he had to watch schurrle start as a st.

How I rate lukaku is immaterial here. It cant always be the other person's fault. It cant always be lukaku who did not want to fight, or kdb or bertand or mata or luis or this and that. I respect Jose's acheivement but he was at fault for most of these players leaving us and making us a squad filled with talent to a squad having no talent.

We were buying rooney even with lukaku in the squad. Hell we got etoo with lukaku in the squad. Why do people keep saying we got costa in place of lukaku. Thats the mentality which has already hurt us. Any PL winning side/CL playing side needs a 20/22 player squad to fight at all ends. We did not. So, NO, we did not get costa in place of lukaku.

Yes, Batshuayi looks talented, I agree. But its rather surprising that you dont rate a striker way ahead in his development, already a PL proven goal-scorer and literally of the same age, as the one we bought.

I will support Batshuayi as much as i supported any other chelsea player once the season starts or even when he is officially announced. But currently, I cant get over the fact that the 13/14 roster that looked so promising has been absolutely RUINED and WASTED.

We won the double a year later with a squad performing way better than the roster we had back then.

Costa is still a better striker than Lukaku so I don't see what we are losing out on, we now have a more rounded player joining us than Lukaku. He doesn't have EPL experience but then neither did Drogba and that worked out well.

Lukaku scores goals but he more often than not looks clumsy, can't hold up the ball and fades out of games. He has the odd good game but his consistency in that respect is poor. He would cost around £20 million more than the boy we are about to sign and would kick up another fuss when Costa pushes him back to on the bench.

I seriously doubt Lukaku will ever go on to be one of the best strikers in Europe, he doesn't have the technique for it.

Edited June 29, 201610 yr by Chelsbear

I didn't expect this one but nevertheless I'm pleased he's joining. Hopefully he doesn't join our B team in the Netherlands on loan and provides quality backup to Costa. If he does sign however it more than likely spells the end for players like Remy and Bamford

 

Don't worry; Adineen98.

So Lukaku who I think had about 15-20 appearances overall for Chelsea "never got a chance".

Yet Bertrand Traore was relegated to 5th choice striker after Patos signing and what did he do? He utilised the small chances he got and with a few promising sub appearances climbed right up to second choice, so in other words Traore makes absolute mince meat of the myth Lukaku never got a chance.

Lukaku in his first few months at Chelsea got brought on while we were losing to both United and Arsenal, he also started against Fulham, Everton and Liverpool, all of which were top ten sides that season, he had more than enough opportunity to show a bit of promise and earn some more chances just like Traore did, and he f**kes every single one of them up.

Lukaku had 15 "apperances" which were a total of 500 minutes of football spanned over how many years? Well, that seems like a brilliant oppurtunity? morover his 3 starts for the club were when he was 18. Oh well, thats a fair oppurtunity, right?

 

Bertrand Traore did not have 17 goals to his name playing for WBA. Bertrand Traore did not have the pressure to want to start for his NT in the biggest stage in the world :FIFA World cup. So no, Bertrand Traore did no such thing. 

 

Yes, a 18 year old raw talent struggling against united and arsenal who were protecting leads is unheard of.  I am sorry mate, yes traore at 19 has performed better than lukaku at 18. I hope we send traore on loan and he scored 17 goals for WBA and i also hope that this time we ACTUALLY make use of such a talent. 

Oh FFS can people get over Lukaku leaving and stop hijacking threads that aren't about him. PLEASE!

God news for Eden as well.

 

And Thibaut and Charly.

So Lukaku who I think had about 15-20 appearances overall for Chelsea "never got a chance".

Yet Bertrand Traore was relegated to 5th choice striker after Patos signing and what did he do? He utilised the small chances he got and with a few promising sub appearances climbed right up to second choice, so in other words Traore makes absolute mince meat of the myth Lukaku never got a chance.

Lukaku in his first few months at Chelsea got brought on while we were losing to both United and Arsenal, he also started against Fulham, Everton and Liverpool, all of which were top ten sides that season, he had more than enough opportunity to show a bit of promise and earn some more chances just like Traore did, and he f**kes every single one of them up.

 

probably the worst performance from a Chelsea player i have seen in the last 10 years was by Lukaku in that League Cup game against Liverpool in 2011 at SB, it was embarrassing to watch! 

Edited June 29, 201610 yr by pacquiao

We won the double a year later with a squad performing way better than the roster we had back then.

Costa is still a better striker than Lukaku so I don't see what we are losing out on, we now have a more rounded player joining us than Lukaku. He doesn't have EPL experience but then neither did Drogba and that worked out well.

Lukaku scores goals but he more often than not looks clumsy, can't hold up the ball and fades out of games. He has the odd good game but his consistency in that respect is poor. He would cost around £20 million more than the boy we are about to sign and would kick up another fuss when Costa pushes him back to on the bench.

I seriously doubt Lukaku will ever go on to be one of the best strikers in Europe, he doesn't have the technique for it.

We won jack squat next year, the main reason being no squad depth and sh*t replacements. Do you understand the problem now? That roster was one for the future. Now our future looks bleak, do you get what we lost?

Is remy a better striker than Lukaku? Is the current Falcao and Pato? How are you not getting this?

More rounded player? Well, the Belgian coach does not think so. Hell he prefers that Orgy guy than Batshuayi. So dont know how you came to that conclusion. 

I am not sure what language i have been talking in, but I am pretty sure I have spoken about Lukaku being the no.2/replacement. And before you say "he did not want to be", well I have tried explaining the WHY for that too. well, so much for trying to explain. I am pretty sure (i would say 99.99999999% sure that Batshuayi wont go on to be one of the best strikers in europe, but i am kinda glad we are buying a decent back-up. would have been glad if we had "kept" a better back up about 2 years ago).

Lukaku had 15 "apperances" which were a total of 500 minutes of football spanned over how many years? Well, that seems like a brilliant oppurtunity? morover his 3 starts for the club were when he was 18. Oh well, thats a fair oppurtunity, right?

Bertrand Traore did not have 17 goals to his name playing for WBA. Bertrand Traore did not have the pressure to want to start for his NT in the biggest stage in the world :FIFA World cup. So no, Bertrand Traore did no such thing.

Yes, a 18 year old raw talent struggling against united and arsenal who were protecting leads is unheard of. I am sorry mate, yes traore at 19 has performed better than lukaku at 18. I hope we send traore on loan and he scored 17 goals for WBA and i also hope that this time we ACTUALLY make use of such a talent.

I'm not denying what Lukaku has done elsewhere but this is purely Chelsea I am talking about.

If he shone or at least showed something in those cameos or league cup games he would have got more chances, that's what Traore did, he had three sub appearances, not only looked good but netted in all three, and was rewarded with a fair few starts and was trusted ahead of experienced alternatives when Diego went off vs PSG, he earned that, he didn't get it handed to him just because he is young and "deserves' a chance.

At any top club, you are not going to get a run of games if you are not showing anything, and Lukaku didn't, if Rashford f**ked up vs Arsenal he would have had to wait longer for more chances, but he didn't and the rest is history.

imagine thinking Wilmots prefers Origi to Batshuayi 

 

Its out of Lukaku and Batshuayi to start against Wales on Friday, as Lukaku isnt good against parked buses where he has no space (another reason why he will struggle at a top club) Batshuayi is a much better option against parked buses

Basthuayi will be better than Lukaku after just one season at Chelsea, Forget Lukaku - he flopped at Chelsea, move on and let's use what we have. He's going to give us goals and we are going to do well under Conte. Stop this whining and just love what's coming. I'm excited for next season. Come on Chelsea!!