Romelu Lukaku | Chelsea

Mike Smalling

Full Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Messages
4,525
Which season did he perform at the level expected of a world record signing?
He did get 16 goals in 47 games in the 2018/19 season. As I recall, he was pretty good that year. He was also in the PFA Team of the Year.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
37,817
Location
Manchester
He only cost 10% less and underperformed for 6 years, after which he left for free. His presence at Man United for those 6 years was disruptive and hugely divisive without being productive.

As I've said, Lukaku was a disaster of a signing but it could be a worse, he could stick around for another 5 years, continue to underperform and then leave for nowt.
Yep but he performed better than Lukaku and won us a few cups.

The Lukaku deal at more money, plus the disruption, is worse. He’s only been there a season and It’s all gone to rat shit. Not even a managerial change or clash. He’s just a terrible signing who didn’t fit.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
44,515
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
He did get 16 goals in 47 games in the 2018/19 season. As I recall, he was pretty good that year. He was also in the PFA Team of the Year.
"Pretty good", fair enough.

Is that what you hoped for when you broke the world record to buy him? I'd say not and he underperformed, given the hope and expectations.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
32,943
Which season did he perform at the level expected of a world record signing?
First 3 seasons he was good, don't know what's the level for world record signing. It's like saying Messi was awesome for PSG just because he was free transfer. Good performance is a good performance irrespective of whether its a record fee or free transfer.
 

Red the Bear

Something less generic
Joined
Aug 26, 2021
Messages
4,236
Anyway feels good to be smug for once , Chelsea fans sure can't say we didn't warn them!

Anyway gloating aside there must be a semi decent player in there somewhere, conte is one of the most proven managers around and he certainly rates him.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
44,515
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
First 3 seasons he was good, don't know what's the level for world record signing. It's like saying Messi was awesome for PSG just because he was free transfer. Good performance is a good performance irrespective of whether its a record fee or free transfer.
I used the term "underperformed" for a reason. I think Pogba underperformed for you. He might still have been "good" but when you spend 90.or 100 million you want more than "good".

Of course Pogba was better in those seasons than Lukaku was for Chelsea.
 

Mike Smalling

Full Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Messages
4,525
"Pretty good", fair enough.

Is that what you hoped for when you broke the world record to buy him? I'd say not and he underperformed, given the hope and expectations.
Obviously, he underperformed as a whole during the stint here, there's no denying that. "Pretty good" was more of an understatement really.

I would say getting 16 goals and 11 assists from midfield, and getting into the Team of Year (in a bad team, by the way) was about the level we would have hoped for, when we bought him. Of course, he should have performed to this level across all seasons, but that didn't happen.

I was basically just refuting that there isn't a single season, where he performed well enough to live up to expectations.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
44,515
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
Obviously, he underperformed as a whole during the stint here, there's no denying that. "Pretty good" was more of an understatement really.

I would say getting 16 goals and 11 assists from midfield, and getting into the Team of Year (in a bad team, by the way) was about the level we would have hoped for, when we bought him. Of course, he should have performed to this level across all seasons, but that didn't happen.

I was basically just refuting that there isn't a single season, where he performed well enough to live up to expectations.
I personally think you have a low bar for a world record signing but that's a reasonable post.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
32,943
I used the term "underperformed" for a reason. I think Pogba underperformed for you. He might still have been "good" but when you spend 90.or 100 million you want more than "good".

Of course Pogba was better in those seasons than Lukaku was for Chelsea.
You started with "I won't name who I think is the worst pl transfer ever because I think it's pogbvious."

Not sure how not living up to some non-existent level makes him worst pl transfer when other player who cost more than Pogba failed to do basics, so much that club are happy to loan him out after one season, taking huge loss.

Pogba won Europa league player of the year (if I'm not wrong), made PFA team of the year and he was good in 2017-18 season. He had shit seasons too but it's nowhere near Lukaku.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
37,817
Location
Manchester
You started with "I won't name who I think is the worst pl transfer ever because I think it's pogbvious."

Not sure how not living up to some non-existent level makes him worst pl transfer when other player who cost more than Pogba failed to do basics, so much that club are happy to loan him out after one season, taking huge loss.

Pogba won Europa league player of the year (if I'm not wrong), made PFA team of the year and he was good in 2017-18 season. He had shit seasons too but it's nowhere near Lukaku.
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!
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
56,447
Location
France
I don't understand what you mean. They are two separate transactions. It's not Inter's fault Chelsea couldn't work it out with Lukaku (or maybe it is, but that's a conspiracy rabbit hole I'm happy to go down). Chelsea are legally and contractually obligated to pay Inter the full transfer fee. The fact that he's going back to Inter on loan is a huge embarrassment for Chelsea (and Lukaku) but it's also totally irrelevant.
And if Inter make the better offer then they are the better destination. Chelsea shouldn't put pride over common sense.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
56,447
Location
France
You started with "I won't name who I think is the worst pl transfer ever because I think it's pogbvious."

Not sure how not living up to some non-existent level makes him worst pl transfer when other player who cost more than Pogba failed to do basics, so much that club are happy to loan him out after one season, taking huge loss.

Pogba won Europa league player of the year (if I'm not wrong), made PFA team of the year and he was good in 2017-18 season. He had shit seasons too but it's nowhere near Lukaku.
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.
 

EtH

Full Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2021
Messages
1,637
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!
He’s clearly on one. He can’t be serious.
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
17,983
One of the worst transfers of all times is actually too soft, I can't remember any player costing that much, failing to deliver in the first season(not even being first choice) and getting sold very next year. Has that ever happened?
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.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
44,515
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
You started with "I won't name who I think is the worst pl transfer ever because I think it's pogbvious."

Not sure how not living up to some non-existent level makes him worst pl transfer when other player who cost more than Pogba failed to do basics, so much that club are happy to loan him out after one season, taking huge loss.

Pogba won Europa league player of the year (if I'm not wrong), made PFA team of the year and he was good in 2017-18 season. He had shit seasons too but it's nowhere near Lukaku.
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.
 

WeePat

Full Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
9,446
Supports
Chelsea
And if Inter make the better offer then they are the better destination. Chelsea shouldn't put pride over common sense.
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.
 

Noodle

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
288
Supports
Chelsea
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.
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
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
32,943
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.
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.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
32,943
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.
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.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
32,943
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
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.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
44,515
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
How is that not taking huge loss, you have given away the player you signed for 100 million on loan.
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.
 

crossy1686

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
19,668
Location
Manchester/Stockholm
I don't understand what you mean. They are two separate transactions. It's not Inter's fault Chelsea couldn't work it out with Lukaku (or maybe it is, but that's a conspiracy rabbit hole I'm happy to go down). Chelsea are legally and contractually obligated to pay Inter the full transfer fee. The fact that he's going back to Inter on loan is a huge embarrassment for Chelsea (and Lukaku) but it's also totally irrelevant.
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?
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
44,515
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
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.
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.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
32,943
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.
Not sure how this is relevant to who was bigger flop.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
44,515
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
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?
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.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
32,943
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.
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.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
8,250
Location
Blitztown
‘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.
 

12OunceEpilogue

In perfect harmony
Scout
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
15,699
Location
Wigan
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.
 

B20

HEY EVERYONE I IGNORE SOMEONE LOOK AT ME
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Messages
26,328
Location
Disney Land
Supports
Liverpool
Nah, too early to say that. It's a disaster of a singing but not the worst.

I won't name who I think is the worst pl transfer ever because I think it's pogbvious.

If he stays at Chelsea picking up massive wages for the duration of his long contract, disrupting the squad for those years, underperforming, getting injured all the time winning only 1 2nd rate trophy and then leaving on a free transfer, I'd agree he is joint worst PL transfer ever.
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.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
44,515
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
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.
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.
 

B20

HEY EVERYONE I IGNORE SOMEONE LOOK AT ME
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Messages
26,328
Location
Disney Land
Supports
Liverpool
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.
 

Lewnited

Full Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
688
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.
 

Dave Smith

Full Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
2,014
Supports
Anything anti-Dipper
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.
 

Dancfc

Full Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
6,209
Supports
Chelsea
Anyway feels good to be smug for once , Chelsea fans sure can't say we didn't warn them!
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 :lol:
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
32,943
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.
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.
 

Red the Bear

Something less generic
Joined
Aug 26, 2021
Messages
4,236
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 :lol:
It's the las laugh that counts :D
 

Noodle

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
288
Supports
Chelsea
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.
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
 

Noodle

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
288
Supports
Chelsea
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.
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.