Romelu Lukaku

toffeejack · January 20, 2016

LinekersLegs said:
At a guess because Austin didn't want to come. @Alan Whittle was saying that Crystal Palace tried quite hard but he wanted to move to Southampton - he'd have probably got a despite probably being able to play as first choice for them.

Agree we need another striker to provide cover but the same thing applies to right back too.

i think it might be because our manager doesn't like every single player that fans on here list as in the "why the hell didn't we buy him?" category.

longers · January 20, 2016

sageyefc said:
The original source is the mirror isnt it

No idea, someone on red cafes posted links to articles in daily express, the sun and espn

Tubey · January 20, 2016

longers said:
Several papers claiming we've told United and others he's for sale for £65m

That's the right fee if true.

LinekersLegs · January 20, 2016

toffeejack said:
i think it might be because our manager doesn't like every single player that fans on here list as in the "why the hell didn't we buy him?" category.

Well that too, personally been banging the drum on Cristian Gamboa and Joel Campbell ever since the world cup and not sure even the Mirror has linked us to them!

But in Austin's case there were rumours we held talks in the summer, could just be twitter gossip though.

hetion · January 20, 2016

Tubey said:
That's the right fee if true.

If we ship Stones and Rom out this summer for ~£100m it's going to be absolute chaos.

kithnou · January 20, 2016

hetion said:
If we ship Stones and Rom out this summer for ~£100m it's going to be absolute chaos.

And an absolute mistake

toffeejack · January 20, 2016

LinekersLegs said:
Well that too, personally been banging the drum on Cristian Gamboa and Joel Campbell ever since the world cup and not sure even the Mirror has linked us to them!

But in Austin's case there were rumours we held talks in the summer, could just be twitter gossip though.

i barely believe anything i read on the internet anymore. Not just football related. Loads of people on here say they wouldn't mind austin, newspaper takes a gander, prints as rumour, other papers go on to publish it.

Who really knows what's going on.

I was more quoting pacman's post, but guess you quoted it from a different thread into here. it's getting late.

LinekersLegs · January 20, 2016

toffeejack said:
i barely believe anything i read on the internet anymore. Not just football related. Loads of people on here say they wouldn't mind austin, newspaper takes a gander, prints as rumour, other papers go on to publish it.

Who really knows what's going on.

I was more quoting pacman's post, but guess you quoted it from a different thread into here. it's getting late.

Still early here, only on my first glass of Chardonnay

sageyefc · January 20, 2016

Tbh the way prices are going and how few and far between consistent goalscorers are at this level nevermind one at only 22, even 65mil might be a tad light

hetion · January 20, 2016

kithnou said:
And an absolute mistake

Oh yeah I'd rather have the players than the money. Reinvesting from selling stars has only been successfully done by Southampton and even they're struggling to pull off the same trick again.

But if we do lose them both this summer, then we're going to have about £130m sitting in the bank when you factor in the new TV deal. And it will be mad to watch how that pans out.

chicoazul · January 20, 2016

Tubey said:
Sorry, that still doesn't wash for me. Yes, we weren't playing him right, but he wasn't doing well enough at what he was being asked to do.

This season, he's actually doing the job he was asked to do last season - holding the ball up and being part of the attacking unit in and out of possession, instead of doing nothing for 85 minutes every game and poking one in to disguise how bad he was.

He was crap last season in general play, and this season he's been a monster. Simple as that.

Lol no. You was just dead wrong about him.

kithnou · January 20, 2016

hetion said:
Oh yeah I'd rather have the players than the money. Reinvesting from selling stars has only been successfully done by Southampton and even they're struggling to pull off the same trick again.

But if we do lose them both this summer, then we're going to have about £130m sitting in the bank when you factor in the new TV deal. And it will be mad to watch how that pans out.

Who is going to touch us of similar quality to Lukaku and Stones when they see we are a selling club with no ambition?

4737carlin · January 20, 2016

65m pre TV money is good, 65m post TV money i don't think so. If he goes better club sides then United will want him anyway

chicoazul · January 20, 2016

Pacman said:
Well the manager has had all January to bring another forward in to lighten the load but apparently thinks having only 1 reliable striker is fine. Why spend £4 mil on Byram when we could have put it on Austin.

LOL @ u being banned under five different usernames now.

sageyefc · January 20, 2016

hetion said:
Oh yeah I'd rather have the players than the money. Reinvesting from selling stars has only been successfully done by Southampton and even they're struggling to pull off the same trick again.

But if we do lose them both this summer, then we're going to have about £130m sitting in the bank when you factor in the new TV deal. And it will be mad to watch how that pans out.

The board would have to either be extremely brave or extremely foolish to sell both during the same window though.

We'd have well more than 130m aswell, New TV deal increasing by 50% alone