Would you pay £24m for Lukaku?

[Brennan]

@Brennan? Never... lol

Outraged at this

 

[Brennan]

Okiedokey - so if all that is the case, why aren't the elite clubs getting in on it this future Golden Boot winner with proven pedigree who will obviously turn a vast profit for the pittance of £24m?

My view is that scouts and managers are looking at him, looking at the way the game is progressing with inside forwards like Messi, Rodriguez, Ronaldo dominating and more nimble, technical strikers like Suarez leading the lines, and thinking, "well, maybe he isn't what we want to build our front line around."

Maybe the same reason that the elite clubs didn't sign Baines from Wigan. Because they're a bunch of tits.

These are the same 'elite clubs' who signed Javi Garcia for £15m, Rodwell for £15m, let Pogba go, and signed Torres for £50m.

We shouldn't be going down that line anyway, clearly Martinez likes Lukaku and thinks he's the striker we need. I'm not particularly arsed what the scouts of United or Arsenal think on the subject.

As for all this inside forward and technical player malarkey, Mourinho has just signed a striker for £32m who on a technical level makes McGeady look like Messi.

 

[Tubey]

@Omarza agreed they're good pure figures, and he is a goalscorer, but I'd honestly say that the Arsenal game aside he was generally poor throughout the actual game. I lost count of the amount of times I'd think "God, get him off FFS" before he'd score, everyone would rave about him, then he'd sink back into doing nothing.

The last time he truly dominated a game like when he arrived was against Arsenal, where he hinged on to the full back who was awful and dominated him by running the ball, which is what he's by far and away best at.

The problem is that his scoring record disguises the overall picture with him - if he disappears for 80 minutes and scores 15-20 goals, he's worth it. But if he disappears for 90 minutes and he goes into a barren spell, it's like playing with 10 men, and if that pattern is the same over the course of a season it's a real problem.

 

[eternal_defiance]

Okiedokey - so if all that is the case, why aren't the elite clubs getting in on it this future Golden Boot winner with proven pedigree who will obviously turn a vast profit for the pittance of £24m?

My view is that scouts and managers are looking at him, looking at the way the game is progressing with inside forwards like Messi, Rodriguez, Ronaldo dominating and more nimble, technical strikers like Suarez leading the lines, and thinking, "well, maybe he isn't what we want to build our front line around."

I don't think I've ever seen Lukaku score a goal from outside the box - apart from the fluky right-foot one against Man Utd for WBA that the keeper should have saved. He has much potential though so I can see all sides of these arguments.

 

[Dithering Dougie]

Really disagree. Spending big doesn't guarantee you an end result unless you can constantly spend big like City/Chelsea.

I criticise Moyes a lot but his transfer policy was spot on - you don't blow the bank on the flavour of the month when you're a club like us. You look around and bring in the Mirallas' of this world for £6m, or the McGeady's and Barry's and Gibson's for nominal fees that dramatically bolster your overall options.

Being smart in the transfer market has served us well and it was the utilisation of the talent that held us back, not the acquisition of the talent in the first place. Martinez has shown he has an eye for a player and can sensibly play the market.

I particularly disagree with the bold part - the fact it happens for the big spenders doesn't mean we should jump on the bandwagon and do a Leeds. This is my concern that people think £24m is small change - it's anything but.

Lukaku scores goals, no question. But think about it - if he was a guaranteed 15-20 goal a season striker in the long term, why aren't Chelsea keeping him, and indeed have shown no desire to even have him in the squad? Why aren't the likes of United looking at him as a replacement for Van Persie in the longer term, or Arsenal for Giroud? Why aren't the big hitters across Europe scrambling head over heel for him?

You talk about needing to splurge to compete - but these clubs that do splash the cash don't seem interested in doing so on him. Doesn't that indicate there's a rather large element of risk in regards to either his ability or his attitude here?

It's not just the big hitters who spend £25m on players, we've seen the likes of Villa and Spurs doing it. We've never been in this situation before where the increase in TV revenue is so vast and are accounts are relatively healthy, so to bring Moyes's shrewd management is irrelevant. We are literally one step behind the top clubs and the thing that will push us on is a top goalscorer, we won't get the chance to buy this type of player again for years.

We're potentially looking at a young spin of our team with real class and talent as well with further added potential, we'd be mad to spurn this opportunity.

 

[Dithering Dougie]

Sturridge cost Liverpool 'around £12m' in January 2013. And Chelsea paid £3.5m in tribunal, £2m in appearance fees, and 15% of that £12m to Man City, as well as £1m to Man City because he made an international appearance while with Chelsea, meaning they had to pay Man City around £8.3m and only made a profit of £4m or under on a player that has been highly rated since a kid just like Lukaku (played for England U16-17-18-19-20-21).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Sturridge#Chelsea

Not sure what Sturridge has to do with anything to be honest. Besides last season he's been an average player with an average goalscoring record.

 

[Tubey]

I don't think I've ever seen Lukaku score a goal from outside the box - apart from the fluky right-foot one against Man Utd for WBA that the keeper should have saved. He has much potential though so I can see all sides of these arguments.

Not outside the box but it illustrates my point:



^ this Lukaku is a world beater. But the Lukaku who is asked to link up play and lead the line is definitely not, and the problem is that the top teams - and Everton - use that type of player.

Before the next sentence I'm NOT saying Naismith is the better player, but here goes - when Naismith started to get games and played really well, it's because he ran channels AND linked up the play, and we looked the more fluid outfit because of it. When we push teams on the back foot with Lukaku playing, things break down and we hit a brick wall as the ball bounces off him.

£24m for a player with such limitations just seems bonkers to me. If it is the asking price, I'd walk away from it. There's plenty to push a hard bargain here because, looking at it coldly and objectively, this is a player who is unwanted by his parent club who has just unimpressed on the international stage, with no experience of impacting upon European football and who has only played football outside the elite level.

 

[Omarza]

@Tubey I understand where you are coming from BUT I do think he will be a great striker. He is still very young...and have a lot to learn still. I actually thought his technical side of the game improved during the season. At the start of the season it was terrible BUT as time passed it did improve...and I am sure Martinez (whom I rate) that works with him daily saw the potential Lukaku has and would love to bring him in permanently.

IF that is the case I would be very happy as he knows better than most managers and scouts out there what Lukaku is capable after working with him for a full year. IMO...I honestly think this is one of those cases where IF we don't get Lukaku in we would be saying in a year or two time...Only if we did...as the chance is there that he can become a world class striker...someone (a world class striker) we will never be able to afford into the future...and this imo is one of the few chances we will get...and they don't come along often for clubs like ours who doesn't have large budgets.

 

[Gwladys St. Glory]

When you gonna' finally fight your way out of this paper bag, Tubes...getting bored here.

 

[Del]

How much would he be worth if he was a Chelsea youth product and not a 18m signing?

 

[Brennan]

How much would he be worth if he was a Chelsea youth product and not a 18m signing?

Less presumably, but he'd be a different player.

 

[eternal_defiance]

Not sure what Sturridge has to do with anything to be honest. Besides last season he's been an average player with an average goalscoring record.

My point was in response to your comment 'In 7 years we've seen a huge increase in transfer fees' and 7/8 years ago we paid £12m for Yakubu. Sturridge (£12m) has been played on the wing for a lot of his career but when played CF has a very good scoring record. 8 in 12 at Bolton for example and a ridiculous record of 31 in 43 for Liverpool. Anyway, my point was very obvious. Sigh. To further illustrate, in 2009 Real Madrid paid £80m for Ronaldo. 2013 they paid £85.3m for Bale. Have things changed that much? In 2002 Man Utd paid £30m for Ferdinand. Are you saying right now a club would pay £60m for Stones? I think that the real difference is around Europe there are now many, many more rich, super-rich, or mega-rich clubs capable of paying big fees.

 

[Del]

Less presumably, but he'd be a different player.

How so Brenz?

 

[ijjysmith]

Can people do some smaller posts please?

 

[Matthew mcdonnell]

compared to other top strikers, this kid isn't worth £24m on ability, just his youth that's all, I would only pay it as we're guaranteed hopefully 15 goals a season from a striker for many seasons, perhaps breaking 20 goals would be nice but cant see it tbh, kinda agree with tubey here in the sense that there is a chance that we could pay less than £20m and get someone that scores even more, i.e sturridge, but can't see much other strikers right now that are obvious choices, otherwise it's a risk like michu but they can be one season wonders, so best just get this kid and hope he can improve more and become world class