Lukaku - transfer speculation | Gone

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aren’t most transfer fees paid in installments anyway? I’m pretty sure the only time I’ve ever heard of them being done up front was the Ronaldo transfer, or when a buyout clause is activated. Other than that I’m fairly sure it’s always spread over a period of time. Why are all of you banging on about them paying the money up front :confused:

I’m pretty sure we aren’t paying 50 million for AWB all at once this summer either.
 
giorno said:
Cash flow should not be an issue for you, 10+60 is far more advantageous for you, and it's unlikely they'd pay the 30m upfront anyways
Click to expand...
If they want to do a small amount upfront I would charge them more overall
 
Cassidy said:
If they want to do a small amount upfront I would charge them more overall
Click to expand...

That's fair. We have to remember this is Lukaku though and we paid over the odds for him. Prices haven't changed that much since the explosion, and he's got worse.
 
giorno said:
So you'd rather keep a player who is a backup, wants to leave, and can net you a massive profit, while you already have cheaper replacements lined up, because...why?
Click to expand...

Yes, he can play in 2 upfront, come off the bench, can still score vital goals which can help us in top 4 bid and possibly uel too. Massive profits? 2 years later you will get full backs for that price. And if he keeps scoring automatically the value goes up.

United need cash up front to buy replacements.
 
VeevaVee said:
That's fair. We have to remember this is Lukaku though and we paid over the odds for him. Prices haven't changed that much since the explosion, and he's got worse.
Click to expand...

They obviously rate him (or Conte does) we should use that to our advantage
 
VeevaVee said:
What a weird stance. Very attitudey as well. Ciao.



We needed that anyway. We just need to not piss about. There's still plenty of window left.



You don't know this though. You're choosing to think it.
Click to expand...

Do you think or will assume we have cash to get lukaku replaced without cash coming in when we have massive rebuilding left in other areas?.
 
Berbaclass said:
In two years he has a year left on his deal and is worth significantly less. We're at the point now where we get as much as we can for him and get someone else.
Click to expand...

But we are selling him now with only 10m coming our way.
 
I would sell him if they can put €50m up front with €30 to follow over the next 2 seasons. That money would allow us to buy the likes of Ben Yedder
 
Crap deal. Theyll figure out a way of loaning him for two years then not actually paying up.

I think we should sell him though.

He's a great player if you play him in over the top and he can race onto the ball, or if he runs at people. Problem is, he has no touch so if we are playing possession football or he needs to link play with the other front players. Also useless as a target man.

Because he doesnt fit our style, We should cash in, but just to someone who will sign him and pay most of the money upfront
 
El Jefe said:
It should especially if we'll be having big commitments this year and next. Unless we structure the deal the same way for his replacement we'll be at a loss cash flow wise over the loan period of the deal. Over the 3 years of course it evens out.
Click to expand...
It won't, not for a club the size of United. And of course you aren't going to sign his replacement and pay him in a lump sum
Patrick08 said:
United need cash up front to buy replacements.
Click to expand...
Unlikely that is the case. And this effectively a sale for all intent and purposes. You aren't going to take it into account for budgeting purposes 2 years from now
 
Feck Inter, they better cough up the dough.

Its sad to say that Inter are the only ones who actually want to buy Lukaku, nobody else is in for him. Are there any other buyers that I don't know about?
 
Cassidy said:
They obviously rate him (or Conte does) we should use that to our advantage
Click to expand...

True. He doesn't have much hype on his side now though, which seems to have a weird amount of influence over prices. I'm not sure we could get much more for him, but we should be able to get more upfront, obviously depending on Inter's circumstances.

golden_blunder said:
We could obviously but I mean it probably wasn’t budgeted for
Click to expand...

I think Ole has been planning to sell him for a good while now. I imagine they've been planning outs and what happens if it happens. Then again, that might be a bit too much faith in Ed.
 
Red_Orchestra said:
Feck Inter, they better cough up the dough.

Its sad to say that Inter are the only ones who actually want to buy Lukaku, nobody else is in for him. Are there any other buyers that I don't know about?
Click to expand...

Only Conte wants him for some strange reason, we should take those money and run. Cut our losses of this steaming pile.
 
Posh Red said:
Who can we realistically replace him with? Don’t like him as a player but I’m not sure who’s out there that we could sign
Click to expand...

Alexis Sanchez at number 9.

May not have the pace to play wide anymore, but like Ronaldo did, he can play up front as a pure goal scorer. The footballing brain and desire is still there.
 
giorno said:
Unlikely that is the case. And this effectively a sale for all intent and purposes. You aren't going to take it into account for budgeting purposes 2 years from now
Click to expand...

Why is it so unlikely? We need heavy investment in other areas of the pitch, we are in Europa league which results in a revenue loss. And still in a battle for a top 4 and champions league fight next season with chance to win Europa league. Why would we let go of him and his goals without cash up front to get a replacement. With possibly inter joining in Europa league as well come Feb.
 
Last edited:
Patrick08 said:
Why is it so unlikely? We need heavy investment in other areas of the pitch, we are in Europa league which results in a revenue loss. And still in a battle for a top 4 and champions league fight next season with chance to win Europa league. Why would we let go of him and his goals without cash up front to get a replacement.?
Click to expand...

We don’t need cash up front to get a replacement. If we buy a replacement, which is debatable anyway, we’ll do a deal that’s paid over 3 - 5 years. That’s normal.
 
George The Best said:
We don’t need cash up front to get a replacement. If we buy a replacement, which is debatable anyway, we’ll do a deal that’s paid over 3 - 5 years. That’s normal.
Click to expand...

How will the club we buy from will get their replacement? It depends on lot of factors. Cash in hand is the best way to get deals over the line.
 
I can’t believe so many people on here saying it’s great.

These feckers according to reports were demanding £49m up front for Perisic who is nowhere near as good as Lukaku. Lukaku could be the difference between them challenging for the league or top four.

We should treat them how they treated us when we wanted their player. Demand most of the fee up front not like their owners can’t afford it.
 
Feck off with their loan deal, he will be a great striker over there so €70mill over 2 seasons €45-€50 mill straight up, remaining to be paid by July 2nd next season.
 
JMack1234 said:
We bought him 2 years ago for £80+ million, he wears the number 9 and he's scored 42 goals in 96 appearances.

Yet there is total apathy about his potential departure.

Speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
How about you quote some Premier League stats instead of padding his numbers by quoting all comp goals against championship teams and Europa League teams. His Premier League stats are 16 and 12. That's quite poor when you consider he can't press defenders, can't hold up the ball, doesn't run in behind, and has horrible stamina and technique.
 
Berbaclass said:
Really? :lol:
Click to expand...
They want us to give them our best striker for essentially peanuts for the first two years and it will negatively impact what we do this summer. The only incentive for selling Lukaku is that we can get a good amount to reinvest this summer. This deal doesn't benefit us one bit. This is not even to mention how unreasonable they were during our pursuit of Perisic.
 
Patrick08 said:
Why is it so unlikely?
Click to expand...
Because of your £600m in revenue. Finding cash won't be a problem. And if you need the money right away to balance the books, you will likely write it down right away, since this is effectively a sale, that should be allowed. Certainly so as far as FFP is concerned
 
Hawks2008 said:
They want us to give them our best striker for essentially peanuts for the first two years and it will negatively impact what we do this summer. The only incentive for selling Lukaku is that we can get a good amount to reinvest this summer. This deal doesn't benefit us one bit. This is not even to mention how unreasonable they were during our pursuit of Perisic.
Click to expand...
That is not a fact though, it's just your opinion. We're not Bournemouth, we can afford to buy players, especially if we have guaranteed that we will recoup a chunk of it.
 
Patrick08 said:
How will the club we buy from will get their replacement? It depends on lot of factors. Cash in hand is the best way to get deals over the line.
Click to expand...

Cash in hand is only important to clubs that have financial issues to resolve, generally ‘smaller’ clubs. If we trade with one of the ‘bigger’ clubs then cash up front should not be a problem and the normal staged payment protocol should apply. CPFC wanted money up front for AWB for a reason - do you really think they are going to blow the entire £50m (or whatever) on his replacement?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.