Romelu Lukaku

Status
Not open for further replies.
gixerk6 said:
Can understand that but if he signs anew 5 year deal and only if the release clause is £60m like it's been speculated and he still leaves in the summer then we've gained sod all from making him sign it. Only having 2 years left on his deal means sod all these days.
Click to expand...

If he dosent sign and we keep him for a year we might still got 60, which means we have wasted 12 month worth of higher wages. Lets say he doesn't sign and we keep him for a year, ok we might get a bit less but if he really wants to go for a top side he will have to be scoring well for that final year, which should benefit us anyway.
Unless he either signs or we get a big offer in the summer, we should just keep him on the contact he is on now.
 
gixerk6 said:
Can understand that but if he signs anew 5 year deal and only if the release clause is £60m like it's been speculated and he still leaves in the summer then we've gained sod all from making him sign it. Only having 2 years left on his deal means sod all these days.
Click to expand...

Google Webster ruling
 
terraloon said:
Google Webster ruling
Click to expand...
Never been used by a high profile PL player since the ruling in 2008

Primarily because the idea that the financial 'harm suffered' to the owning club is merely the wages outstanding is incorrect. They protect themselves by having it contractual clear that the 'harm suffered' would be the market value of the player at the point he decides to exit his contract.
 
4737carlin said:
If he dosent sign and we keep him for a year we might still got 60, which means we have wasted 12 month worth of higher wages. Lets say he doesn't sign and we keep him for a year, ok we might get a bit less but if he really wants to go for a top side he will have to be scoring well for that final year, which should benefit us anyway.
Unless he either signs or we get a big offer in the summer, we should just keep him on the contact he is on now.
Click to expand...

If he doesn't want to play for us, let him go !
 

Foot Long Hot Dog said:
Never been used by a high profile PL player since the ruling in 2008

Primarily because the idea that the financial 'harm suffered' to the owning club is merely the wages outstanding is incorrect. They protect themselves by having it contractual clear that the 'harm suffered' would be the market value of the player at the point he decides to exit his contract.
Click to expand...

The issue then is what would be the market value? In pure asset terms Lukaku after 3 years of a five year deal will have an amortised value of around £12 million.He maybe worth £60 million or even £70 million.If as I suspect there is talks behind closed doors the sort of clubs he will be looking to go to won't worry about that level of fee they will just be keen on signing him asap.Ironicaly one of the factors that would be taken into account is his wage and whilst huge by most people's asssesment in top players terms it isn't and even if you factor in the supposed uplift to £140k that still isn't in the higher echelons

If he has the clause you talk about in his contract and there is certainly no guarantee there is, he could threaten to invoke the ruling, there is little doubt that others before have threatened to walk and achieved their desired contract or the wanted transfer.

The threat in itself would focus minds for from that point on Everton would have lost control . Transfer tribunals and more recently the assessment of playing compensation has been commonplace in football for decades the super rich clubs are happy to risk others setting even an inflated fee. Look for instance at Danny Ings at that over team.
 
Last edited:
terraloon said:
The issue then is what would be the market value? In pure asset terms Lukaku after 3 years of a five year deal will have an amortised value of around £12 million.He maybe worth £60 million or even £70 million.If as I suspect there is talks behind closed doors the sort of clubs he will be looking to go to won't worry about that level of fee they will just be keen on signing him asap.

If he has the clause you talk about in his contract and there is certainly no guarantee there is, he could threaten to invoke the ruling, there is little doubt that others before have threatened to walk and achieved their desired contract or the wanted transfer.

The threat in itself would focus minds for from that point on Everton would have lost control . Transfer tribunals and more recently the assessment of playing compensation has been commonplace in football for decades.
Click to expand...
Ask yourself why this Webster exit strategy has never been used in the PL since the ruling in 2008 mate.

It's a complete red herring with regards to Lukaku.
 

USABlue said:
He giveth and taketh away. That 5th place finish in his loan season probably convinced him to sign permanently but the subsequent diasters is probably why he'll go
Click to expand...
Thank god Lukaku didn't listen to me, we're about to make a bucket load of cash on that Martinez signing.
 
ianefc said:
Without being to delusional, we could conceivably be 5 points off 4th placed Liverpool with Liverpool to play next come 6 o'clock on Sunday afternoon. You may need to re-define close.
Click to expand...
Thats true and I'd love nothing better than to make a top 4 run to end the season but even in that scenario we would still need to win at the pit to close the gap 2 and we haven't done that in ages. I'm not trying be overtly negative as I do think we're heading in the right direction, just dont think its as fast as a rebuild as others think
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top