Agree. I’m not sure why @duffer has gone all in on this. Can only assume he’s up to his old WUMery so perhaps he’s succeeded in getting us caught in to such a silly debate about Pogba!
Romelu Lukaku | Chelsea
- Thread starter RDCR07
- Start date
Agree. I’m not sure why @duffer has gone all in on this. Can only assume he’s up to his old WUMery so perhaps he’s succeeded in getting us caught in to such a silly debate about Pogba!
And if Inter make the better offer then they are the better destination. Chelsea shouldn't put pride over common sense.
Lukaku costs more in transfer fee and wage, he has barely been good enough to start for Chelsea, was already organizing a comeback to Inter weeks after joining Chelsea and is now leaving on loan to Inter. As you said Pogba didn't play like the best midfielder in the world but overall he was the best United player for a while.
Lukaku is a more expensive Andy Carroll when it comes to transfer flops.
He’s clearly on one. He can’t be serious.
Equally I can't think of a transfer that was so obviously going to fail to anybody who had watched anything more than a highlights package of his time in Italy.
Chelsea loaning him out for 10 mil isn't "taking huge loss", it's getting some of our losses back.
Like I've said, Lukaku was a terrible signing. Eventually we will probably end up about 50 million down after suffering through 1 season of him being shit. I'd take that over losing 89 million for 6 seasons of the Paul Pogba you got.
True.
At the moment, they are the only offer, so it's not like Chelsea have a lot of leverage in this situation. He could go there and have a decent season, which could hopefully trigger a bit more interest around Europe.
Exactly, we’re still going to lose out but it’s not ’£97m wasted’ as some keep saying. Only talking transfer fees here as wages would have been spent on another player anyway…
We’ve had one season with 15 goals at a cost of £19.4m. His book value is now £77.6m.
We’ll get around £8m of that paid for this season and we’ll stand to the other £11.4m loss.
Next summer he’ll be worth £58.2m And be 30. We’ll either sell and take a hit on the fee but recoup a chunk or we’ll keep him as a squad player and use him.
Either way we’ve massively overpaid but if we sell we stand to lose around £40-50m over the lifetime of the deal and used him for a season
Often players are bought for that sort of fee who walk away for free. Pogba cost £80m, underachieved and walked away for nothing. Dembele at Barca for similar etc
How is that not taking huge loss, you have given away the player you signed for 100 million on loan.
You can take anything you want to, doesn't change the fact that Lukaku is biggest flop. If we are going by transfer money made, then James is our second best transfer in PL history as we made 100% profit on him but that's not how it works.
Exactly, people somehow forgets how much Lukaku is paid, he is on insane wages, 97 million pounds transfer fee and he offered nothing.
Pogba was our best player or among top 2-3 players in first 3 seasons, even in 2020-21 he was very good.
If you are using book value as a reason why you won't lose money then Pogba's book value was probably 0 when he left as he fulfilled his contract.
Because his contract doesn't expire at the end of the loan, that's why.
The loss was when we signed him or when we sell him (or if he leaves on a free).
Getting a potentially toxic personality out of the club (even on a loan), into the shop window and recouping some of the money you spent is a good thing, not a bad one.
It’s madness then, and Lukaku should never even be mentioned next to a big clubs name ever again. Surely the loan deal will recoup some of the costs over a couple years?
Absolutely, if we let Lukaku stink up Stamford Bridge (far worse than Pogba) for 5 years and leave on a free then of course it's miles worse than what (it seems like) we're doing.
Not sure how this is relevant to who was bigger flop.
10 million loan fee this season and hopefully he tears it up then someone buys him for about 50 mil is not totally unimaginable. Still a flop and a big loss but better than it could be.
If Lukaku played anywhere near like Pogba did for first 3 seasons for us, Chelsea wouldn't have loaned him out.
Lukaku stunk up the pitch, Pogba played well at least for half of his term (I would argue it's more than that). Comparing them doesn't make sense.
‘Book value’. The leaps!
He’s one of the worst signings in PL history right now. Period.
I suspect he’ll go on loan somewhere, Tuchel will leave and Lukaku will again return ‘Home’, under a new manager, and shake off that tag. But as of right now he’s up there with Andy Carroll.
He’s one of the worst signings in PL history right now. Period.
I suspect he’ll go on loan somewhere, Tuchel will leave and Lukaku will again return ‘Home’, under a new manager, and shake off that tag. But as of right now he’s up there with Andy Carroll.
Lukaku is obviously a worse flop than Pogba at United, or even Lukaku at United. Chelsea are getting a better monetary deal than United did for sure, but that doesn't change who was the bigger flop.
Chelsea should never have done this deal, but fair play to them for reverse-parking out of this one as fast as they can. I wish we'd done the same with Pogba.
Chelsea should never have done this deal, but fair play to them for reverse-parking out of this one as fast as they can. I wish we'd done the same with Pogba.
There is a reason United didn't ship Pogba out on loan like you are and in fact offered him a new contract this summer. Besides the misguided sense of pride, fomo and rampant commercialism among the suits at united.
As disappointing as he's been he's still been streets ahead of Lukaku in terms of actual performances. One is a "he's been disappointing, but there is something to work with here" player who should have been world class but has regressed to a point where that seems out of reach now. The other is a "what the hell, I wouldn't take him if you offered him to me for free" level player.
The fact that Man United wasted years trying to get the best out of Pogba (and ultimately failling) makes it worse, not better.
If they'd binned him off a few years ago and spent the money on someone who wanted to be there, they'd be in a better place.
Sure. But it nonetheless does not make him worse than Lukaku.
He is not worse than Lukaku, I agree.
Add me to the list of people not understanding how Pogba can be viewed as a worse signing. For a long time we could barely create a chance unless Pogba was on the pitch. We were scrambling to give him a new contract for years, rightly or wrongly. Lukaku could barely even get in to the Chelsea team and had given up after a few months.
The Lukaku transfer is honestly closer to Di Maria or Sanchez (because of the extortionate wages we paid out) than anything else.
The Lukaku transfer is honestly closer to Di Maria or Sanchez (because of the extortionate wages we paid out) than anything else.
Lukaku was an absolute disaster. There are so many reasons for this:
1) The fee was around £97m and he was given a mega 5 year wage that Chelsea are now committed too.
2) He has never displayed any elite abilities and this was clear to anyone that watched him. Only people that are stat obsessed said otherwise.
3) Chelsea funded his purchase by selling a number of their youth products who have big upside.
4) Chelsea cannot shift him unless they take a serious hair cut and have to face the embassment of sending him back to the very people they brought him from for stupid money.
I get sending him back to Inter is better than having him at Chelsea as he is so shite, but let's be real, he has been an absolute disaster which ever way you look at it.
1) The fee was around £97m and he was given a mega 5 year wage that Chelsea are now committed too.
2) He has never displayed any elite abilities and this was clear to anyone that watched him. Only people that are stat obsessed said otherwise.
3) Chelsea funded his purchase by selling a number of their youth products who have big upside.
4) Chelsea cannot shift him unless they take a serious hair cut and have to face the embassment of sending him back to the very people they brought him from for stupid money.
I get sending him back to Inter is better than having him at Chelsea as he is so shite, but let's be real, he has been an absolute disaster which ever way you look at it.
We equally warned you when you got him.
Ironically some members who defended him to the hilt are now on here preaching exactly the same stuff they took offense too when I said it
5 years ago there was Morata vs Lukaku thread, it was hilarious how twisted posts were defending Morata, 4 years later Chelsea signed Lukaku to complete the shitness puzzle.
Atletico bailed them last time, hopefully none of the clubs do that this time.
It's the las laugh that countsWe equally warned you when you got him.
Ironically some members who defended him to the hilt are now on here preaching exactly the same stuff they took offense too when I said it
I wasn’t using a book value to show why we haven’t lost money. I’m suggesting we‘ll get one season and maybe £40-50m back for him overall (loans and transfer). So it’s not £97m wasted, more like less than half of that
Pogba was the better signing as it stands. If we get £50m of the £97m recouped through loans and an eventual sale then i’d argue it’s much closer to call.
You haven't got anything back, there is no guarantee that any club will pay 40-50 million pounds for him. Inter paid around 70 million when he was much younger player, he will be 30 after his loan spell, doubt many clubs will pay that much for him, especially when he is on huge wages.
89 million for Pogba is much better deal than 50 million for Lukaku.
This talk of 50m amuses me. Lukaku isnt leaving Inter after one season since he’s found his level and where he’s comfortable at. Only league paying 50m for a 30 year old who doesn’t want to be at the sellers club are in England and he will never return to English football after this.
I dont know about that. Recency bias clouds some people their judgement about Pogba his second Manchester United period but he was good in his earlier seasons. Pogba might have had more decent/good seasons for Manchester United than Lukaku had good games for Chelsea.
We considered him a bit of a disaster signing after he left us, but we certainly got more out of our investment than Chelsea did. What on Earth were they thinking spending near £100m on him
That’s why i used the word ‘maybe’. We’re already recouping £8m from this loan, it’s not outlandish to then think we could sell him for a further £32-42m in a years time.
In the meantime you’ve tied up a club record fee in a player who’s practically done nothing for you. 100m pounds that could be better spent on players who actually want to play for your club and don’t belong in a mental institution. The fact that you MIGHT one day recoup a portion of that fee doesn’t change what a truly awful signing it was.
We’ve kind of done the same with Pepe but at least he helped us win the FA Cup and he did try to make it work.
Well he didn't say he didn't want to join us before the signing. It was a mistake and we just didn't want to drag on forever. Of course we try to get back as much money as possible but we surely accept the loss and move on. In that way we could write off his wages for doing nothing though.
Probably because he thought he was getting his starting place handed to him.
That's all he cares about, as soon as he loses his place to Dzeko back at Inter he'll suddenly love Everton again.
He's such a turd sandwich.