Romelu Lukaku | United confirm deal subject to medical and personal terms

How do you feel about the imminent signing of Romelu Lukaku?

  • Muppetastic!

    Votes: 456 20.6%
  • Happy enough

    Votes: 1,222 55.2%
  • Ambivalent

    Votes: 370 16.7%
  • Disappointed

    Votes: 112 5.1%
  • Oh please god no!

    Votes: 54 2.4%

  • Total voters
    2,214
Status
Not open for further replies.

Eckers99

Michael Corleone says hello
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
6,117
Did someone just laugh at the concept or RvN being better than Lukaku? The laugh's on you buddy.
 

Coops73

Full Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,346
I'm ok with signing Lukaku (if it actually happens) he's not my most favourite player around and he's maybe not the most technically gifted striker you'll see but neither was RVN or Cole but they knew where the net was and so does he, whether he can be as prolific as when he was at Everton where perhaps he had more space, unlike at United where some teams will be more defensive and less open, who knows but I guess if he signs we'll find out and I don't really give a feck about the price, football lost the plot along time ago and as they say "It ain't my money"
 

RetroStu

Full Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,540
People talking about how prices have changed (which is true) but Arsenal get Lacazette (sp?) for £40mil, thats the right amount of money, not £90mil on fecking Lukaku.
I hope to god we have 3 or 4 other players in the pipeline.
 

Unmutual

New Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
1,225
Exactly. Be interesting if someone compared say United's turnover in '95 to what it is now and the Cole vs Lukaku fees. I would, but I can't be bothered.
Cole, fee £7m, turnover £61m, 11.4%
Lukaku, fee £75m(?), turnover £570 (predicted), 13.1%

So, a bit higher, but about the same region. Assuming its £75M that is, seen other figures floating around.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
61,769
People talking about how prices have changed (which is true) but Arsenal get Lacazette (sp?) for £40, thats the right amount of money, not £90mil on fecking Lukaku.
I hope to god we have 3 or 4 other players in the pipeline.
Lacazette might as well be the new Henry but he could also be the new Guivarch. He never stepped out of France before. I don't think Lukaku is WC but he's EPL proven, he's the typical Mou's target man and he does score goals.
 

Adebesi

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
19,159
Location
Sanctity, like a cat, abhors filth.
People talking about how prices have changed (which is true) but Arsenal get Lacazette (sp?) for £40, thats the right amount of money, not £90mil on fecking Lukaku.
I hope to god we have 3 or 4 other players in the pipeline.
Not to take anything away from the gist of your point, which is right, but you are comparing the price with add ons for United to the one without add ons (and rounded down) for Arsenal.

Its £75m vs £46.5m without add ons.
Or £90m vs £52.6m with.

Still a huge difference as you said. But hopefully that will be vindicated by their performances.
 

el3mel

New Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2016
Messages
43,736
Location
Egypt
People talking about how prices have changed (which is true) but Arsenal get Lacazette (sp?) for £40, thats the right amount of money, not £90mil on fecking Lukaku.
I hope to god we have 3 or 4 other players in the pipeline.
First, terribly wrong prices for both players. Lacazette is 46m pound while Lukaku is 75m pound till something else is confirmed. If you want to add the bonus then Lacazette deal will reach 52m pound.

If Lacazette is worth 46m then Lukaku sure worth at least +70m. At least Lukaku isn't scoring half of his goals through penalties.
 

onemanarmy

Full Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
4,717
Location
Belgium
People talking about how prices have changed (which is true) but Arsenal get Lacazette (sp?) for £40mil, thats the right amount of money, not £90mil on fecking Lukaku.
I hope to god we have 3 or 4 other players in the pipeline.
Lacazette comes from a much smaller league, from a club who needs the money. Apprently only Arsenal were after him. Both Chealsea and Utd were after Lukaku. Totally different situation.
 

spiriticon

Full Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
7,523
People talking about how prices have changed (which is true) but Arsenal get Lacazette (sp?) for £40mil, thats the right amount of money, not £90mil on fecking Lukaku.
I hope to god we have 3 or 4 other players in the pipeline.
Right? This is such bullshit.

Nothing to do with the times, more with us being mugs as usual. 'YES WE'VE GOT MONEY, COME AND TAKE IT ALL ^___^'

We need to have £15 million in add-on clauses for Rooney's sale on top of the £10 million initial fee.

2017, bitches.
 

whatwha

Sniffs Erricksson’s diarrhea
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
7,612
Location
Norway
The problem is when we sell players it's still 1996 prices. Letting Rooney go for £10 million? feck that. 2017 prices Everton. Fork out that £25 million.
Hah, as if we can even hope for 10m for Rooney. He'll leave on a free transfer. Either that or it will be a loan with us still paying half his wages.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
61,769
Why do Sky keep going to a reporter outside Carrington, when Lukaku is in bed in an LA hotel?
Howard Nurse is probably parked in front of a hospital in Antwerp waiting for Adolphine to give birth.
 

RetroStu

Full Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,540
Not to take anything away from the gist of your point, which is right, but you are comparing the price with add ons for United to the one without add ons (and rounded down) for Arsenal.

Its £75m vs £46.5m without add ons.
Or £90m vs £52.6m with.

Still a huge difference as you said. But hopefully that will be vindicated by their performances.
And there is a huge difference in quality between Lacazette and Lukakau imo.
 

spiriticon

Full Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
7,523
Hah, as if we can even hope for 10m for Rooney. He'll leave on a free transfer. Either that or it will be a loan with us still paying half his wages.
This is the kind of 1996 mentality that we need to stop having.
 

Ali Dia

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
14,378
Location
Souness's Super Sub/George Weahs Talented Cousin
I can't help but feel that if Chelsea get Morata and we get Lukaku they'll be the ones reaping the rewards.
I think United with all our new signings could have looked a very different team this year whoever was up front. One could argue there are a lot more goals in our current squad anyway. I'm happy with the pl proven goal machine. Hopefully he can bring the best out of our other forward players and turn some of those draws into wins. as it stands now you can see why Chelsea would much prefer lukaku as they were hoping to just tweak a winning formula and Morata is more of a gamble in that sense. We are still very much in the middle of a rebuild here. Exciting times!
 

whatwha

Sniffs Erricksson’s diarrhea
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
7,612
Location
Norway
People talking about how prices have changed (which is true) but Arsenal get Lacazette (sp?) for £40mil, thats the right amount of money, not £90mil on fecking Lukaku.
I hope to god we have 3 or 4 other players in the pipeline.
You got the spelling right ;)
 

RetroStu

Full Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,540
If we are paying £90mil for Lukaku, i'd rather we spent £200mil on Ronaldo or Kane, or another world class striker (it doesn't matter if they are available when we are talking about £200mil).
I mean would that really be any more 'stupid' than spending almost half that on freaking Lukaku?.
 

Rado_N

Yaaas Broncos!
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
111,219
Location
Manchester
This bullshit increasing of price by certain journos is why arguements about values and what an "£Xm player" should be like is so ridiculously futile.

The agreed transfer fee of £75 was blatantly leaked. Any outlet trying tell us it's more now are probably being fed info by someone with an agenda, such as Chelsea trying to make it look like more or Madrid press because of the Morata talks falling apart.

But £75m will become £90m because one bloke claims it from nowhere and a few people decide to run with it. That will then be talked about in terms of Euro, because the number is higher and the press don't care that we're talking about 2 English clubs.

Then the Euro figure just gets a £ sign instead of a € sign and suddenly a £75m transfer fee is £101m and idiots on here are moaning about spending £101m on Lukaku.
 

Ramshock

CAF Pilib De Brún Translator
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Messages
45,425
Location
Swimming against a tide of idiots and spoofers
Does nothing at international level, hasn't shown outstanding class across opponents in the league, has zero champions league pedigree. Sound logic indeed.

Players like this come in as supplementary to bona fide world class. If they don't make the step up then, it's not the end of the world.

If he's our lead-the-line-forward, he will have to make an enormous leap in performance and mental strength. Can he do that? Perhaps. But it's a £75m bet and that's unsettling.
Absolute pap. He has been in PL scoring goals for 5 years and still playing against the same opponents. Why he should stop scoring because he joined United is beyond me.
 

onemanarmy

Full Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
4,717
Location
Belgium
If we are paying £90mil for Lukaku, i'd rather we spent £200mil on Ronaldo or Kane, or another world class striker (it doesn't matter if they are available when we are talking about £200mil).
I mean would that really be any more 'stupid' than spending almost half that on freaking Lukaku?.
Yes it would be stupid. Since when is Kane world class? 200m for a 32 year old Ronaldo? Ok then...
 

cheeky_backheel

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2017
Messages
2,529
Oh no, I didn't mean the amount per se. I meant the fact that he is going to be our main striker next season.
The fact that he is going to be the main striker does not change the fact that when we dont have the ball, he will be expected to defend like every other player on the pitch and not just stand around twiddling his thumbs
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
25,588
Not to take anything away from the gist of your point, which is right, but you are comparing the price with add ons for United to the one without add ons (and rounded down) for Arsenal.

Its £75m vs £46.5m without add ons.
Or £90m vs £52.6m with.

Still a huge difference as you said. But hopefully that will be vindicated by their performances.
If we can afford to spunk ridiculous money on Martial i fail to see why so many have issues with doing so for a more proven player.

Its basically just people who don't like Lukaku taking an opportunity to moan about fees. When we sign Fabinho next week they'll be saying its not their money so who cares.
 

JustAFan

The Adebayo Akinfenwa of football photoshoppers
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
32,377
Location
An evil little city in the NE United States
Lacazette comes from a much smaller league, from a club who needs the money. Apprently only Arsenal were after him. Both Chealsea and Utd were after Lukaku. Totally different situation.
If Lukaku also qualifies as a home grown player, then you can figure a bit of an increased price for that also.
 

Adzzz

Astrophysical Genius - Hard for Grinner
Staff
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
32,781
Location
Kebab Shop
This bullshit increasing of price by certain journos is why arguements about values and what an "£Xm player" should be like is so ridiculously futile.

The agreed transfer fee of £75 was blatantly leaked. Any outlet trying tell us it's more now are probably being fed info by someone with an agenda, such as Chelsea trying to make it look like more or Madrid press because of the Morata talks falling apart.

But £75m will become £90m because one bloke claims it from nowhere and a few people decide to run with it. That will then be talked about in terms of Euro, because the number is higher and the press don't care that we're talking about 2 English clubs.

Then the Euro figure just gets a £ sign instead of a € sign and suddenly a £75m transfer fee is £101m and idiots on here are moaning about spending £101m on Lukaku.
Hold the door, is that common sense making an appearance?!
 

RetroStu

Full Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,540
Yes it would be stupid. Since when is Kane world class? 200m for a 32 year old Ronaldo? Ok then...
Since when is Lukaku worldclass?. I'm not even that keen on Kane but i'd rather Kane than Lukaku.
Seriously if City or Liverpool were paying £90mil for Lukaku, people on here would be pissing themselves, and don't try to deny it.
 

spiriticon

Full Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
7,523
Who would pay real money for him after his last couple of years? Got nothing to do with our mentality, I'm afraid.
His last couple of years is the only reason why we can't demand £50-60 million for our club record goalscorer. Fair's fair I'd say.
 

Adebesi

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
19,159
Location
Sanctity, like a cat, abhors filth.
This bullshit increasing of price by certain journos is why arguements about values and what an "£Xm player" should be like is so ridiculously futile.

The agreed transfer fee of £75 was blatantly leaked. Any outlet trying tell us it's more now are probably being fed info by someone with an agenda, such as Chelsea trying to make it look like more or Madrid press because of the Morata talks falling apart.

But £75m will become £90m because one bloke claims it from nowhere and a few people decide to run with it. That will then be talked about in terms of Euro, because the number is higher and the press don't care that we're talking about 2 English clubs.

Then the Euro figure just gets a £ sign instead of a € sign and suddenly a £75m transfer fee is £101m and idiots on here are moaning about spending £101m on Lukaku.
That could conceivably be where the 90m number came from actually, rather than add ons a euro conversation gone awry. £75m is a little over €85m, round that up...

Who knows.
 

JustAFan

The Adebayo Akinfenwa of football photoshoppers
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
32,377
Location
An evil little city in the NE United States
The problem is when we sell players it's still 1996 prices. Letting Rooney go for £10 million? feck that. 2017 prices Everton. Fork out that £25 million.
The other factor with Rooney is that it takes a large wage off our books, and given we obviously have no use for him anymore and he is near the end of his career, yeah our ability to get much for him is pretty limited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.