toffeejack
Player Valuation: £100m
It's the daily star , so I'd imagine the exact opposite will happen
we'll loan him to chelsea?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's the daily star , so I'd imagine the exact opposite will happen
It's the daily star , so I'd imagine the exact opposite will happen
Is it? I will openly admit I have no idea how big or small our budget is, but I don't know that 20m is all we can afford to shell out on Lukaku if he's our main target.Well there isn't one direct quote there so they're assuming Chelsea want to make a profit on him. They're all assuming he'd want to sign a new deal there. Be surprised if they expected more than £20m for him to be honest. £20m tops is all we can afford to spend on him anyway.
Is it? I will openly admit I have no idea how big or small our budget is, but I don't know that 20m is all we can afford to shell out on Lukaku if he's our main target.
Yeah I agree about not spending it all on one player. And we don't know our budget until it's allllllll gone and we have lots of expensive shiny new players.We could probably afford to spend our whole budget on him which I suspect is about £25m-£30m, what I meant was we can't afford to use our whole budget on one player.
Definitely this. Lukaku is worth every pound of 25 million. The question is, do you spend your entire budget on him, or spread it around?25 million... go and sign him. Strikers who can score in this league are like gold dust.
His value will increase over time.
The likes of Bony would cost similar and look at what Tottenham got with Soldado for 28 mil.
Lukaku doesn't take our penalties either so his scoring ratio is very impressive.
Pro rata 25 million is the same as the 4.5 million we spent on Duncan or the 5 million on Kanchelskis.
We havn't gambled on paying real top wack on a striker since then. 11 for Yak was significant but not close to record spend and he always gave a good 15 months before fading. His injury just magnified this sadly.
Now obviously Lukaku could pick up an injury just as Benteke sadly has for Villa, but that is the nature of the game.
We have been very fortunate to have the likes of Coleman, Barkley and Stones on board for circa 3 million outlay, add in McCarthy for half the cost of a less effective Fellaini and we should not fear breaking the bank for this lad. He has all the right attributes too from age, experience and room to grow with the others.
Question is though mate, would you prefer to say pay 25m for lukaku and then get in a couple of 4m pound lads, or would you prefer to say loan Lukaku for another season, and get in the likes of Tadic and Markovic on perms (could be any two names of similar value like) for roughly the same amount of overall spend?