Romelu Lukaku back to Chelsea - and gone again!

[enigma]

2 hours 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.

 

I don't know. I think a top goal scorer is a top scorer anywhere. Look at Aubameyang. He was tearing up Bundesliga, comes to the PL and got 20+ goals for the first two seasons.

[ForeverCarefree]

22 minutes ago, abramovich said:

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

Point I was making is that United were content to sign an aging Cavani on a free because of the lack of top class forwards available. 

[TheGermanOne]

2 hours 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.

 

I disagree. Lukaku would never score 40 goals in the Bundesliga like Lewandowski did. Lewandowski is probably the best striker in the world right now and Haaland is very close to him. Dont forget that Lewandowski had Leroy Sané, Gnabry, Coman and Müller who assisted him to score this incredible 41 goals in one season.
Even if Lukaku would play for Bayern he would not score 40 goals because he is simply not as good as Lewandowski.

From what I have seen in Bundesliga Haaland is almost as good as Lewandowski and he is better than Lukaku IMHO. Dont forget how young Haaland is and  how much potential he still has compared to a 28 years old striker like Lukaku.

Dont take me wrong: Lukaku is a very good striker but not in  the same class like Lewandowski and Haaland.

[Zeta]

If we're willing to spend 120-odd million on Lukaku, i'd rather we spend 150m on Haaland.

[abramovich]

21 minutes ago, ForeverCarefree said:

Point I was making is that United were content to sign an aging Cavani on a free because of the lack of top class forwards available. 

That's why that move made sense for United at the time. I wouldn't be against signing Lukaku on a free or on loan or even for a small fee if it would mean having him as just one of the attacking options, no problem.

It's signing him for an absolute fortune on a long term contract and high wages is what I have a problem with. Let's be honest here, if it happens, it only means we couldn't get better players (Kane, Haaland, Lewandowski), so he's our consolation prize.  This is the kind of money you only spend on a genuine world class talent at the right age. Lukaku is not that, and never was. What we're doing right now is the very definition of being desperate and painicky.

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by abramovich

[evissy]

Buying Lukaku for over 100m is insane. I just don't get it. He is a top goal scorer in Italy but we saw him in Utd shirt not too long ago. He was very average. He is also a player for a counter attacking side. In the Prem the way we play he has 6-10 of those matches in a season if even that. 

I feel if we buy him Tuchel will fail sooner than anyone hoped. 100m and he has to play him no matter what. 

[abramovich]

Unless it's a calculated move to pressure Dortmund into being more reasonable with what they demand for Haaland in which case I'm all for that.

[fester]

Don't under estimate how tactical the transfer market is. 

Maybe we are bidding for Lukaku in order to get Dortmund thinking that the £130m  being offered might just disappear from the table to be replaced by £70m next summer, leaving Dortmund with a loss of £60m when Haaland could get injured for half of next season.  

I have no inside knowledge, just too many years of watching the games played in the transfer market.  I suspect we won't get Haaland, we may get Lukaku who I have mixed feelings about, but he looked good in the Euro's and will get good service for TT's Chelsea formation.  Personally I'd go for Ings, I think he would thrive at Chelsea with the service he'd get, then go back for Haarland next year the money "saved" can go to wages/signing-on fees.

[Bluesince66]

So it looks more and more like Lukaku might be the striker we end up with,he must fancy coming back for us to have bid.

[ForeverCarefree]

7 minutes ago, abramovich said:

That's why that move made sense for United at the time. I wouldn't be against signing Lukaku on a free or on loan or even for a small fee if it would mean having him as just one of the attacking options, no problem.

It's signing him for an absolute fortune on a long term contract and high wages is what I have a problem with. Let's be honest here, if it happens, it only means we couldn't get better players (Kane, Haaland, Lewandowski), so he's our consolation prize.  This is the kind of money you only spend on a genuine world class talent at the right age. Lukaku is not that, and never was. What we're doing right now is the very definition of being desperate and painicky.

Whether we, the fans, rate Lukaku or not is kind of immaterial. 

Chelsea hold a long standing interest in him and we've got a history of signing long term targets.

He was previously our first choice before we signed Morata. Current reports about Kounte say we've been tracking him for 2 years as another example. 

It's not a panic buy if we bought him but as I've said elsewhere in this thread, whether he is the "right" player for us or not is a whole other discussion. 

[Guest Sindre]

8 minutes ago, evissy said:

He is also a player for a counter attacking side. In the Prem the way we play he has 6-10 of those matches in a season if even that. 

It will be much more then that. Especially with the way we press and look for quick transitions i'd say most games would fit Lukaku's strengths.

And he's capable of scoring 25 goals in this league as he did for Everton. Only Drogba in our recent history have managed that for us so if he could replicate those kind of numbers he'd be worth every penny.

[TheGermanOne]

20 minutes ago, Zeta said:

If we're willing to spend 120-odd million on Lukaku, i'd rather we spend 150m on Haaland.

I could not agree more.

[abramovich]

8 minutes ago, ForeverCarefree said:

Whether we, the fans, rate Lukaku or not is kind of immaterial. 

Chelsea hold a long standing interest in him and we've got a history of signing long term targets.

He was previously our first choice before we signed Morata. Current reports about Kounte say we've been tracking him for 2 years as another example. 

It's not a panic buy if we bought him but as I've said elsewhere in this thread, whether he is the "right" player for us or not is a whole other discussion. 

Just because we were looking to sign Lukaku four years ago, doesn't necessarily make him our long term target. We were looking to sign Alex Sandro around the same time, I don't think we still do. Of course, should we buy Romelu now, the party line would immediately change to him being our long term target all along. But we all know, if we could land the likes of Haaland or Kane, Lukaku's name wouldn't have even come up as an alternative.

Edited August 3, 2021 by abramovich

[evissy]

1 minute ago, Sindre said:

It will be much more then that. Especially with the way we press and look for quick transitions i'd say most games would fit Lukaku's strengths.

And he's capable of scoring 25 goals in this league as he did for Everton. Only Drogba in our recent history have managed that for us so if he could replicate those kind of numbers he'd be worth every penny.

I disagree. Most side will sit back as we saw under Tuchel in the Prem. In the CL we triumphed as all big teams want to play football. We really struggled to score against almost every side in the Prem under TT. I feel Havertz could be a better fitting striker for us than Lukaku. Although he is still so young an untested so we'd need to lower expectations for goals numbers. 

Lukaku for me is a massive risk in almost every aspect. 

[ozboy]

Whether it’s lukaku or haaland I still can’t see who is going to drop out of the current 11. Wouldn’t be havertz mount or Werner in my team. Whoever it is may still only play some of the time. Nothing wrong with that. 

[Remy10]

I just can't get behind the idea of paying big money to re-sign a player we let go years ago. The pressure and scrutiny will be huge for those reasons, and we know from experience that a Chelsea striker rarely performs under those circumstances. Add to that the pressure of him returning to the PL after a relatively dissapointing time at United. I would love to be proved wrong, however, and for this to be a great story of redemption and us finally managing to get it right with a record transfer for a striker, but I can't help but be sceptical!

I guess the optimistic spin is that under those circumstances it's "written in the stars" for him to return and win us the league, scoring a crucial goal away in his first game back at Old Trafford or something, so, y'know...there's always hope! 

[ducavis]

8 minutes ago, Zeta said:

If we're willing to spend 120-odd million on Lukaku, i'd rather we spend 150m on Haaland.

 

44 minutes ago, Zeta said:

If we're willing to spend 120-odd million on Lukaku, i'd rather we spend 150m on Haaland.

Halaand’s fee isn’t just £150m though, there is another £50m-£60m that needs to go Riaola & his dad. I am with signing Halaand instead of Lukaku but I don’t think he/his agent wants him to move this year. Next year will be perfect for them as they can start a wage bidding war, and move him to the club that meet “their” set objectives. He didn’t move to Dortmund for only £25m, Riaola & his dad got a fee, they inserted a 50% wage increase clause in year 2, a transfer clause in year 3. Those will be the kind of conditions they will be looking for him in his next move, and maybe like Neymar to PSG; throw in a plane and some prostitutes. 

[acidicleo]

Please let this remain a rumour...

I can live with another season of false 9 which will be better..

There is a chance that Kai Timo partner will get better. 

And there is atleast a chance we would bid for halland next summer..If he prefer other clubs we could hope someone else like a vlahovic become good options..

the worst case will be us playing with kaku and united /city with halland!!

 

[axman2526]

Like with Haaland I just do not see it happening. Lukaku made it clear he is happy at Inter and does not want to come here.

You dont win things with players who dont want to play for you.

[axman2526]

Personally think this is all a bunch of face saving news churned out by those who have contacts at Inter.

They lost their title winning manager and fan favorite Hakimi so they need something to beat their chests over. Withstanding a none existant barrage from "Romans tanks firing 50 quid notes at them" (trademark David Dein) and keeping their main man will help with that.

Just have to look at the report. We offer 100mill euros and Alonso but are happy to go back in with 130mill plus no Alonso? Sure and am sure we will be reported to do so, so Inter can reject again and beat their chests some more.

Edited August 3, 2021 by axman2526

[JM7]

The sad thing is by signing Lukaku this year, we rule ourselves out of Haaland next year. I’ve got mixed feelings on both Lukaku and Haaland so I don’t know what to think anymore. 
 

All I know is the season starts in 2 weeks and we’ve got signed anyone apart from a 3rd choice keeper. 

[DidierDrogbalala]

People focus way too much on the negative side of Lukaku, the fact and reality is that he'sbeen better than any of our fowards since Eden left.

So why wouldnt you to  add someone with his talent ?

He's strong and can be bully wich none of our current fowards can do.

he's fast, he's a good passer, he can hold the ball, he can head the ball, he can put the ball in the net and his first touch is much better then people give him credit for here.

I believe that managers can change a player mentality and ability and i think Conte did just that and really help Lukaku to grow as a footballer.

I belive that Tuchel can even push Lukaku to another level.

We are not getting Kane or Haaland, so unless Chelsea fans are willing to be stuck with Tammy Werner and Havertz as our main goal getters i suggest to ease up a bit with your expectation , because if you say that Lukaku don't make us better i think you are playing too much FIFA.

 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by DidierDrogbalala

[coco]

3 hours 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. 

All of them are a punt, some more than others, Lukaku at 100m+ and a sizeable contract is a gamble on par with Morata, we were lucky to get out of that one, but we wasted 2 seasons.

 

[forbzy]

It could be a smokescreen to try and get some movement from Dortmund with Haaland. However it looks more likely that Lukaku has now become our first choice target. As others on this thread have pointed out, Haaland is not just the transfer fee but also huge agent fees and salary demands. Presumably if we were to sign Haaland there would have to be consideration given to the salaries of other key players at Chelsea etc.

Regardless if we want Lukaku we will still have to pay big as Inter do not seem keen to sell. I wouldn't read much into Lukaku's previous comments. He was always going to follow the advice of his agent in that respect, and it seems as though that agent is now pushing for the move. So expect Lukaku's comments to evolve 😉

[coco]

5 minutes ago, DidierDrogbalala said:

He's strong and can be bully wich none of our current fowards can do.

City do ok with no physical presence up front.