He's gonna score against us a few times isn't he
Aye, nailed on. He'll have to wait a while though - we don't play Chelsea until late-November.
Romelu Lukaku | Chelsea
- Thread starter RDCR07
- Start date
Aye, nailed on. He'll have to wait a while though - we don't play Chelsea until late-November.
They tried to sign him, I think they didn't want to pay the huge price as they sold him for 28 million just couple of years ago. Conte was the one who pushed for that transfer more than the club.
Maybe Woodward did the trick.
My opinion on him hasn’t changed. Gets goals wherever he goes but his touch is a notch below that of a truly elite forward and therefore he cannot be relied on at the highest level. Very good player but not quite one of the absolute best.
Good luck to him, said someone things about us previously.
Glad he’s not here.
will probably serve Chelsea well though
will probably serve Chelsea well though
You say it in jest, but he did kind of say Woodward personally ringing him meant a lot to him.
I think he'll do well. From what I've seen Chelsea create loads of chances against teams in a low block which we didn't do as well when he played for us. Then again, maybe some of that chance creation was partly due to the play of their forwards (despite their poor finishing). And he doesn't really have to do that well against the big teams. Tuchel has them well organized and ready for 0-0s and 1-0s in all those games.
How many clubs is that for Lukaku now and where was his longest stay?
He'll score freely against the mid table and relegation candidates but remains to be seen if he fares better this time against the top 5 PL teams.
He'll score freely against the mid table and relegation candidates but remains to be seen if he fares better this time against the top 5 PL teams.
Yeah, if both managers wanted him and then "Others from club" wanted him then it had to be Woodward only isn't it. (or Matt Judge).
Hopefully by then his purple patch will be finished.
That's true to be fair.
Topscorer of the season incoming
Yeah, I've always felt it was too early for him to make that move at the time since he was already in Anderlecht's first team. Glad he gets to write his own Chelsea story now, just like he dreamed.
I really do not quite understand your reasoning here? Man Utd outspend Chelsea, that is a fact. I am trying to understand why this stadium issue is such a harsh detail for you? Do you think every club should be required to have a mega stadium? Is the reason Man Utd has not won trophies have anything to do with the size of Chelsea's stadium?
I think the reasoning is pretty obvious and I've explained it a few times now if you have a read.
Either that or continue to bury your head in the sand. Just accept what your club is and move on.
Lukaku has now moved club again and we still haven't signed a striker (who wasn't a 34 year old free transfer, or a weird loan for a 30 year old ex-Watford striker) since selling him for 60 odd million.
Not even sure we have spent 1p on a striker since we signed Lukaku in 2017.
Not even sure we have spent 1p on a striker since we signed Lukaku in 2017.
My club is the champions of Europe and one that wins trophies regularly, I have accepted it. Your whining about Stamford Bridge still makes no sense. We have not even touched on the fact that people are complaining that Old Trafford is in crucial need of repair, the Glazers can sort that out. Big stadiums cost a lot of money. A lot of sports clubs are deciding it is not worth the money.
Well too be fair we had high hopes for Martial/Rashford one of them leading the line. I was happy at getting rid of Lukaku but one of the biggest mistakes(there has been plenty) in the last 8 years was not signing a proper replacement.
SAF always had a top class striker in his side, especially during his last few years when the glaziers where penny pinching and our squad wasn’t the best we still always had a WC striker
Hardly.
Not having a good striker hurt for roughly the first 6 months of last season - when Martial was shit and Cavani wasn't fully up to speed. The season before that Martial and Rashford each got 20+, and second half of last season Cavani was doing quite well.
Much bigger issues elsewhere- CM, RW, CB to start with.
Actually it hurt more than that. We were awful when we sold him the season before and if not for Bruno coming in that January even with Martial firing we wouldn’t of made top 4.
Im just saying that if you sell your main striker you have to replace him
Well now it’s not but in that season it definitely was. As I said Martial stepped up but still we were poor until Bruno turned up.
Im glad Lukaku is gone, as I said to my Chelsea mate he will score plenty especially against the bottom 10 but will effect the whole system and limit them in big games. He is a player that stats will always say is class but when he is at your club you see how he limits the overall play from game to game
Think Chelsea and City are going to pretty much break away into their own little mini league of 2 now with all the oil money. Covid’s just deepened the disparity vs the rest of the league. Not really any way the rest of us can compete with the sums they’re throwing around. Especially when we’re stuck with the Glazers.
Lukaku scored 15 goals including 12 in the league the season before he was sold. Martial scored 23 goals including 17 in the league in the next season. IDK what you mean by replace, that's better than "replacing".
There were massive issues with that team both before and after Bruno. They were mostly about creativity from midfield and attacking from the right flank. The two 20-goal players weren't the issue.
There was a story that he'd managed to seriously offend someone high up at the club and that wasn't resolved until quite recently. I don't know any details though.
How the feck have Chelsea paid almost 100M for a journeyman with the first touch of a brick wall?
Lukaku is a prick by all accounts, wasnt there talk of him threatening to injure United players in training if he didnt get his move?
The problem is there haven't been many "top class" strikers even available in recent years. Lukaku was one of them, and we signed him and it didn't work out. But after selling him I'm not sure who you would have us go in for. Lewa was never going to move, nor Benzema or Suarez (we'd never take him anyways). Kane has been unavailable for years, nor would Aguero would ever happen. So discounting those, you either have to buy someone cheaper and hope you strike gold, or you go the Liverpool/Chelsea route and play without a real striker.
I hear fans moaning about needing a "proper 9" but the truth is the best ones can't be bought and you either have to develop them yourself (like we have tried with Martial, and now Greenwood), or you wait until the next one comes around a la Haaland next year.
A mistake. He should have stayed in the Italian league. He will be crap again in England.
He will be their new Shevchenko/Torres.
He will be their new Shevchenko/Torres.
Regarding Lukaku, he adds goals to Chelsea especially against lesser sides, but I'll be interested to see how he affects their big game strategy.
Never heard of that one
….sounds absolute bollocksChelsea’s record with number 9’s is absolutely shocking. Would not surprise me if he flops. We’ll see.
Well, considering that would be premeditated assault & highly highly illegal. I’m gonna say no?
I don’t think any player would get away with that especially if he is outspoken like that.
You're an American Chelsea fan right?
The fact you don't understand speaks volumes and is why there's no point having a discussion with you about FFP billionaire sugar daddy clubs like Chelsea, City and PSG.
As I've said, you can get away with having a tiny stadium as you don't need the revenue. Other clubs have to grow organically and therefore have to speculate to accumulate. That's why United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, West Ham and soon Everton and Leicester have all invested in their stadiums or built new ones.
You haven't because you don't need to do it. Roman pays. The fact you don't see the advantage of that is even more baffling. If other clubs develop, as they have to, and get the timing wrong, you end up with a Sunderland situation (another club with a bigger, better stadium than you) languishing in the lower leagues or in huge debt like Spurs. You haven't had to take that risk as you have the everlasting safety blanket of your sugar daddy.
Isn’t the lack of development more owing to limitations of what can be done at Stamford bridge? I thought that was the reason Roman Abramovich tried to buy Battersea power station to remodel it into a stadium. I reckon he’ll do the same when an opportunity pops up and convert the bridge into condos and shopping or something.
He's been at the club nearly 20 years. He's a billionaire. You're telling me he's not been able to do a jot to the stadium or look at new developments in that period? There may be a few issues but the necessity to do it isn't there. That's the point. Other clubs couldn't sustain what they have over this time in a poxy little shitbox of a stadium. They have because they have his cheque book to fall back on.
I'm surprised people are struggling with this.
He's going to be really good.
Really really good.
Really really good.