28 minutes ago, Ballack & Blu said:

Wtf, we apparently match what they want and Alonso, but reject the offer, prize f**king melts, makes IM look ridiculous, we won’t get Lukaku because they’ll keep morphing the Goal posts…..move on Chelsea, or we will get mugged!!!

I’d argue 100m is getting mugged. That’s what city will get Kane for

Lukaku is a complete waste of money.

Ibrahimovic, who is 39, scored 15 in 19 games last season. Says a lot about the quality of the league.

If he comes here we’ll have wasted 100m and looking for another striker. I can’t believe we were this stupid to make a ridiculous offer, and Inter even more stupid to refuse. Thankfully.

11 minutes ago, Adamrb said:

I’d argue 100m is getting mugged. That’s what city will get Kane for

Apparently the deluded Spuds want 160 large large, 🤣🤣🤣

2 hours ago, Sindre said:

100 million euro + Alonso bid rejected.

It seems we are already starting to get a bit desperate. Also don't quite understand why we are prepared to spend that much money on someone with very little resale value but are buckling at Haalands price. Yes, it's a lot more but we'd almost certainly get our money back for him in the future and with Lukaku we won't.

€100m including Alonso. Cash offer was €85m so about £72m. Doesnt really seem that desperate to me. Ive read Inter will accept if we up it by €10m,then it will be diwn to Lukaku. If Haaland was viable, the club would sign him. If we sign Lukaku, its because Haaland was not an option. 

The fact that we appear to have bid for Lukaku would suggest we've received some encouragement from the player, or at the least his agent, that he's open to the move. 

A first bid is always likely to be rejected. It might not be the total amount being offered that's the issue but perhaps something like how much cash upfront is received etc. 

There's still plenty of time left to make signings but would be nice if we could sign a striker before the season starts. 

34 minutes ago, ForeverCarefree said:

A first bid is always likely to be rejected. It might not be the total amount being offered that's the issue but perhaps something like how much cash upfront is received etc

If The Athletic is to be believed yesterdays bid was our third one this summer.

https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/chelsea-fc-transfer-rumours-news/2021/8/3/22607082/inter-milan-reject-another-chelsea-offer-but-lukakus-head-may-have-turned-reports#comments

Interesting that there are now reports Lukaku may actually be interested in signing for us. My biggest issue with this pursuit was that he didn't want to come and inter didn't want to sell. Supposedly us offering to double his wages may be an offer he just can't refuse.

Now I understand thr current climate of a footballer, that wage isn't just about accumulating wealth but, also a statement of prestige and value as a player and a member of the team. However, I would rather it have been him being persuaded by our sporting project, by talking with TT or his love for our club. Either way we will continue to watch this space.

48 minutes ago, big blue said:

€100m including Alonso. Cash offer was €85m so about £72m. Doesnt really seem that desperate to me. Ive read Inter will accept if we up it by €10m,then it will be diwn to Lukaku. If Haaland was viable, the club would sign him. If we sign Lukaku, its because Haaland was not an option. 

Why sign Lukaku at all? I can understand that maybe Kane isn't doable due to the Levi factor, Lewandowski isn't available and Haaland is too expensive and may not even want to play for us to begin with. I realize we don't know what's going on behind the scenes and there are things beyond Marina's control. 

What I don't get is why it took so long to realize Haaland isn't happening and even less so why would we want to invest a fortune on someone like Lukaku given his age and overall ability. He is not a world class striker, never was, never will be. He got a bit better over the years but he's still a very flawed footballer made to look much better by plying his trade in a weak league suited to his particular characteristics.

If we spent a 100m plus on Romelu, we're stuck with him for the foresseeable future. The idea of City buying Kane and Grealish, United adding Sancho.,, Pool already having a top attacking force and us having Lukaku as our first choice striker, well, that's just depressing.

We’ve all seen lots of lukaku, so most will have made up their mind.it’s hard not to agree that a 21  yr old haaland is worth a lot more than a 28 yr old lukaku. But lukaku did make the euro team of the tournament as picked by a bunch of people who can judge. He is a good player. And more than 100 goals in premier league for three different clubs. 

Edited August 3, 20214 yr by ozboy

1 hour ago, dansubrosa said:

Lukaku is a complete waste of money.

Ibrahimovic, who is 39, scored 15 in 19 games last season. Says a lot about the quality of the league.

Lukaku's record playing in the Premier League is 252 appearances, 113 goals and 42 assists. 

That's almost a goal every two games and a goal involvement every 1.5 games. 

That's over 7 season 1 at West Brom, 4 at Everton. For a striker not playing at a top 6 side that's impressive by anyone's standards and there's very few strikers in Europe, in their prime, who would have a record matches that. 

 

47 minutes ago, abramovich said:

What I don't get is why it took so long to realize Haaland isn't happening and even less so why would we want to invest a fortune on someone like Lukaku given his age and overall ability. He is not a world class striker, never was, never will be. He got a bit better over the years but he's still a very flawed footballer made to look much better by plying his trade in a weak league suited to his particular characteristics.

I would argue it's harder to score 24 goals in Italy then 27 goals in the Bundesliga (Haaland). The latter is very, very open and Lukaku would probably be close to 40 goals a season in that league.

 

38 minutes ago, ForeverCarefree said:

Lukaku's record playing in the Premier League is 252 appearances, 113 goals and 42 assists. 

That's almost a goal every two games and a goal involvement every 1.5 games. 

That's over 7 season 1 at West Brom, 4 at Everton. For a striker not playing at a top 6 side that's impressive by anyone's standards and there's very few strikers in Europe, in their prime, who would have a record matches that. 

 

The figures do back you up, but i think playing for Everton and WBA suited him, they're back foot teams, were front foot and pressing, i fear like Argo he will upset the dynamics, but iv'e been wrong plenty before.

https://gianlucadimarzio.com/it/lukaku-chelsea-inter-news-3-agosto-2021

Sounds like this may very well be happening.

I don't think there can be any doubt Lukaku strengthen a side who's top scorer last season was Jorginho, quite significantly.

1 hour ago, LongtimerLurker said:

https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/chelsea-fc-transfer-rumours-news/2021/8/3/22607082/inter-milan-reject-another-chelsea-offer-but-lukakus-head-may-have-turned-reports#comments

Interesting that there are now reports Lukaku may actually be interested in signing for us. My biggest issue with this pursuit was that he didn't want to come and inter didn't want to sell. Supposedly us offering to double his wages may be an offer he just can't refuse.

Now I understand thr current climate of a footballer, that wage isn't just about accumulating wealth but, also a statement of prestige and value as a player and a member of the team. However, I would rather it have been him being persuaded by our sporting project, by talking with TT or his love for our club. Either way we will continue to watch this space.

He is on £150k/w, so we are going to pay him £300k/w!?

Who is the current inter manager? 

2 minutes ago, enigma said:

Who is the current inter manager? 

Lazio’s Inzaghi

Though Lukaku is not everyones first choice. Haaland seems out of reach and Kane is not happening. So who else is out there?

I think he's just our only option.

Just now, coco said:

The figures do back you up, but i think playing for Everton and WBA suited him, they're back foot teams, were front foot and pressing, i fear like Argo he will upset the dynamics, but iv'e been wrong plenty before.

I get the aprehension, I really do. 

But we're desperate for a striker. Beggars can't be choosers and all that. 

We need goals so we're looking to sign big. Haaland looks like a no go for whatever reason and Spurs will never sell us Kane. 

So your left with Lukaku, who has a proven goalscoring record or otherwise you're taking a risk on someone like Danny Ings who has a questionable fitness record and hasn't delivered for a "big" side. So Lukaku's potential weakness of not being able to play againt sides who sit deep would also apply to Ings. 

We signed Werner who had a great scoring record in Germany but he struggled in the Premier League so if you signed someone like Andre Silva who had a great goal scoring season last year you might again be left with a player who struggles to replicate their form in a new country/league. 

I think Lukau is being looked at as the "safe" option despite the high transfer fee involved. 

5 minutes ago, Sheva said:

Though Lukaku is not everyones first choice. Haaland seems out of reach and Kane is not happening. So who else is out there?

I think it's quite telling that after Lukaku, Haaland, Kane the sort of names thrown around are Ings and Kalajdzic. 

There's not much middle ground you're either trying for a big name signing or taking a punt on someone you hope might work out. 

There's a reason Manchester United signed Cavani last season. Top level, consistent strikers, are at a premium right now. 

2 hours ago, abramovich said:

Why sign Lukaku at all? I can understand that maybe Kane isn't doable due to the Levi factor, Lewandowski isn't available and Haaland is too expensive and may not even want to play for us to begin with. I realize we don't know what's going on behind the scenes and there are things beyond Marina's control. 

What I don't get is why it took so long to realize Haaland isn't happening and even less so why would we want to invest a fortune on someone like Lukaku given his age and overall ability. He is not a world class striker, never was, never will be. He got a bit better over the years but he's still a very flawed footballer made to look much better by plying his trade in a weak league suited to his particular characteristics.

If we spent a 100m plus on Romelu, we're stuck with him for the foresseeable future. The idea of City buying Kane and Grealish, United adding Sancho.,, Pool already having a top attacking force and us having Lukaku as our first choice striker, well, that's just depressing.

Funny thing is, i think both us and City could inadvertently make ourselves worse by going for out and out forwards. Someone to "finish what we create" sounds good in theory but in reality we are taking a player out of the build up.

I'm that convinced Havertz at false 9 is the answer i'm indifferent to signing Haaland let alone Lukaku. 

2 minutes ago, Argo said:

Funny thing is, i think both us and City could inadvertently make ourselves worse by going for out and out forwards. Someone to "finish what we create" sounds good in theory but in reality we are taking a player out of the build up.

I'm that convinced Havertz at false 9 is the answer i'm indifferent to signing Haaland let alone Lukaku. 

The point is, you're not signing a 100m striker to sit on the bench while we experiment with a false 9 be that Havertz or anyone else. If Lukaku comes it's a huge long term financial commitment and we're stuck witth him and his contract for years to come, with all the good and bad he brings with him and you better believe it he'll be expecting to start most games.

32 minutes ago, Sindre said:

https://gianlucadimarzio.com/it/lukaku-chelsea-inter-news-3-agosto-2021

Sounds like this may very well be happening.

I don't think there can be any doubt Lukaku strengthen a side who's top scorer last season was Jorginho, quite significantly.

Lukaku scored less goals last season than Werner did the year before he joined us. 

5 minutes ago, Argo said:

Funny thing is, i think both us and City could inadvertently make ourselves worse by going for out and out forwards. Someone to "finish what we create" sounds good in theory but in reality we are taking a player out of the build up.

I'm that convinced Havertz at false 9 is the answer i'm indifferent to signing Haaland let alone Lukaku. 

Havertz will continue to play in the "second striker" position I assume. Right off Lukaku if we end up signing him.
I think they could strike up a quite formidable partnership.

1 hour ago, Sindre said:

I would argue it's harder to score 24 goals in Italy then 27 goals in the Bundesliga (Haaland). The latter is very, very open and Lukaku would probably be close to 40 goals a season in that league.

 

Serie A is weaker nowadays than it was ten, let alone twenty years ago.

54 minutes ago, ForeverCarefree said:

I think it's quite telling that after Lukaku, Haaland, Kane the sort of names thrown around are Ings and Kalajdzic. 

There's not much middle ground you're either trying for a big name signing or taking a punt on someone you hope might work out. 

There's a reason Manchester United signed Cavani last season. Top level, consistent strikers, are at a premium right now. 

There's a world of difference between signing Cavani on a free and spending a club record fee on Lukaku.