Join TSR now and chat about whatever you’re intoSign up now
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    You make it sound like Lukaku is some sort of homegrown player with close affiliations with the club - he was bought for an obscene (up to) £17mil fee (for an 18 year old).

    Why is that any different to buying Falcao for 40mil?
    Yeah kinda was on to that. But it's showing how we're trusting younger players. It's no different to how arsenal view chamberlain.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    You make it sound like Lukaku is some sort of homegrown player with close affiliations with the club - he was bought for an obscene (up to) £17mil fee (for an 18 year old).

    Why is that any different to buying Falcao for 40mil?
    How's that obscene?
    He's clearly going to become one of the best strikers in the world within the next few years, if anything it was a bargain for what he will be worth then.

    You could argue he is pretty close to the club, considering he's a Chelsea fan and admitted he grew up idolising the likes of JFH and Drogba whilst they were at Chelsea.

    I'm not too sure how that fee was obscene when you paid a similar amount for Henderson.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam277)
    Yeah kinda was on to that. But it's showing how we're trusting younger players. It's no different to how arsenal view chamberlain.
    I haven't seen any Arsenal fans claim it would be any sweeter to (finally) win a trophy with AOC over a new player bought on a transfer. It's fine to want your own players to succeed and young players mean potential long term future but I don't think Lukaku can be catergorised as homegrown/developed by Chelsea. Heck, if I were a Chelsea fan, I wouldn't care if Lukaku or a new player like Falcao or a lump like Torres helped the club win.

    (Original post by Tweek)
    How's that obscene?
    He's clearly going to become one of the best strikers in the world within the next few years, if anything it was a bargain for what he will be worth then.

    You could argue he is pretty close to the club, considering he's a Chelsea fan and admitted he grew up idolising the likes of JFH and Drogba whilst they were at Chelsea.

    I'm not too sure how that fee was obscene when you paid a similar amount for Henderson.
    He's not clearly already guaranteed to become one of the best strikers in the world - your statement is an opinion and not a fact.

    He's been owned by Chelsea for 2 seasons, one of which has been on loan at WBA - he grew up in Belgium so I'd question how much of a fan he is as opposed to an admirer of certain former players of the club.

    We paid too much for Henderson (13mil rising to 16mil - I doubt any add-ons will be payable as we've been crap for a while now). Lukaku was 10mil rising to 17mil? I'd imagine winning the CL in his first year at Chelsea meant some clauses were already triggered for additional payments.
    I'd argue that Lukaku was more unproven than Henderson at the time of purchase but I don't want to get into this debate.

    I can still hold the opinion that paying £17mil for a 18 year old is too much - especially one who hasn't featured much at all in the first 2 years at the club in the first team.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As opposed to paying £10 million for Walcott when he was about 15, and £16 million for Chamberlain. Yeah, cool.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Musester)
    As opposed to paying £10 million for Walcott when he was about 15, and £16 million for Chamberlain. Yeah, cool.
    Chamberlain=£12m, Walcott=£9.1m
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    I haven't seen any Arsenal fans claim it would be any sweeter to (finally) win a trophy with AOC over a new player bought on a transfer. It's fine to want your own players to succeed and young players mean potential long term future but I don't think Lukaku can be catergorised as homegrown/developed by Chelsea. Heck, if I were a Chelsea fan, I wouldn't care if Lukaku or a new player like Falcao or a lump like Torres helped the club win.
    .
    Guess the fact he's English would mean something more to us. Wilshere/Jenkinson would definitely be special in the same way that Carra/Gerrard were at Liverpool. Was always a bit more special to see Adams/Parlour/Seaman/etc lifting trophies as they were Arsenal men, but then again the likes of Bergkamp(or say Drogba at CFC) meant just as much after they spent so long at the club. Seeing Arteta etc lift a trophy wouldnt mean as much tbh.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    Chamberlain=£12m, Walcott=£9.1m
    rising to 15m for chamberlain and 0.9 mill isn't that much of a difference.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam277)
    rising to 15m for chamberlain and 0.9 mill isn't that much of a difference.
    £900k is alot to Wenger

    But if Lukaku doesnt get a real chance at Chelsea next season then you guys should just stop bringing in these young players.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    I haven't seen any Arsenal fans claim it would be any sweeter to (finally) win a trophy with AOC over a new player bought on a transfer. It's fine to want your own players to succeed and young players mean potential long term future but I don't think Lukaku can be catergorised as homegrown/developed by Chelsea. Heck, if I were a Chelsea fan, I wouldn't care if Lukaku or a new player like Falcao or a lump like Torres helped the club win.



    He's not clearly already guaranteed to become one of the best strikers in the world - your statement is an opinion and not a fact.

    He's been owned by Chelsea for 2 seasons, one of which has been on loan at WBA - he grew up in Belgium so I'd question how much of a fan he is as opposed to an admirer of certain former players of the club.

    We paid too much for Henderson (13mil rising to 16mil - I doubt any add-ons will be payable as we've been crap for a while now). Lukaku was 10mil rising to 17mil? I'd imagine winning the CL in his first year at Chelsea meant some clauses were already triggered for additional payments.
    I'd argue that Lukaku was more unproven than Henderson at the time of purchase but I don't want to get into this debate.

    I can still hold the opinion that paying £17mil for a 18 year old is too much - especially one who hasn't featured much at all in the first 2 years at the club in the first team.
    It's that fact that he's been with us from a young age. It's like saying that fabregas isn't homegrown in arsenal because he was from la masia. Who would you categorise fabregas as. A arsenal youth player or a barca youth player? Surely if he's been at the club for 3 years before 21 he's homegrown by chelsea which will probably be the case.

    Would you say that higuain was developed by madrid or by river plate? Or terry was developed by west ham or by chelsea? Lukaku wasn't getting games so he went to another club, fair enough doesn't mean you're any less of a fan.

    Lukaku didn't play a single game in the CL so there's no clauses.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    £900k is alot to Wenger

    But if Lukaku doesnt get a real chance at Chelsea next season then you guys should just stop bringing in these young players.
    Don't know about you but 900k is a lot to me too
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Musester)
    As opposed to paying £10 million for Walcott when he was about 15, and £16 million for Chamberlain. Yeah, cool.
    To be honest, paying more than 10mil for a player who is younger than 18 will probably be seen as obscene in my view.

    (Original post by Zürich)
    Guess the fact he's English would mean something more to us. Wilshere/Jenkinson would definitely be special in the same way that Carra/Gerrard were at Liverpool. Was always a bit more special to see Adams/Parlour/Seaman/etc lifting trophies as they were Arsenal men, but then again the likes of Bergkamp(or say Drogba at CFC) meant just as much after they spent so long at the club. Seeing Arteta etc lift a trophy wouldnt mean as much tbh.
    Nationality of the players is irrelevant to me. Carra/Gerrard would be seen as more specia because of the fact they are scouse.
    I suppose Wilshere has been at Arsenal since the age of 9 so I can understand that.

    My initial point was - why would Lukaku helping win a trophy mean more to a Chelsea fan than a new purchase like Falcao?
    I can understand length of time at a club being a factor for the fans in relation to a player.

    (Original post by Zürich)
    Chamberlain=£12m, Walcott=£9.1m
    Pretty expensive.. would you say Walcott has been worth it?

    (Original post by jam277)
    rising to 15m for chamberlain and 0.9 mill isn't that much of a difference.
    0.9 of 10mil is 9%.. that's huge
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    £900k is alot to Wenger

    But if Lukaku doesnt get a real chance at Chelsea next season then you guys should just stop bringing in these young players.
    900k stopped you from getting ronaldo.

    Agree with the second. Our club will be idiots if we were not to play him. If not we can just get drogba back from galatasaray I don't mind.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam277)
    It's that fact that he's been with us from a young age. It's like saying that fabregas isn't homegrown in arsenal because he was from la masia. Who would you categorise fabregas as. A arsenal youth player or a barca youth player? Surely if he's been at the club for 3 years before 21 he's homegrown by chelsea which will probably be the case.

    Would you say that higuain was developed by madrid or by river plate? Or terry was developed by west ham or by chelsea? Lukaku wasn't getting games so he went to another club, fair enough doesn't mean you're any less of a fan.

    Lukaku didn't play a single game in the CL so there's no clauses.
    From a young age? He's still at a young age, even if he looks like a 30 year old!
    Fact is, he's been owned by Chelsea for 2 years, and one of which has been spent at WBA - I don't really see any more affinity to that player who's barely featured at the club and then did well in a 3rd year than a new purchase who did well in their 1st year.

    In all of the above examples.. I'd say those players were developed by both clubs? Not sure why you're trying to make it black/white when it's obviously a mixture anyway.

    Would I care more if Henderson helped Liverpool win a trophy over a new purchase? Hell no! A trophy is a trophy and football is a team sport.
    Would I care more if Gerrard won a league title? Yes because he's been Mr Liverpool for quite some time, carried the club, been a superstar player, great captain and comes across like a very nice guy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    To be honest, paying more than 10mil for a player who is younger than 18 will probably be seen as obscene in my view.



    Nationality of the players is irrelevant to me. Carra/Gerrard would be seen as more specia because of the fact they are scouse.
    I suppose Wilshere has been at Arsenal since the age of 9 so I can understand that.

    My initial point was - why would Lukaku helping win a trophy mean more to a Chelsea fan than a new purchase like Falcao?
    I can understand length of time at a club being a factor for the fans in relation to a player.



    Pretty expensive.. would you say Walcott has been worth it?



    0.9 of 10mil is 9%.. that's huge
    Huge in that sense. But either way it's not that big of a difference. You'd still laugh at paying 9 million for a 16 year old and you'd still laugh at paying 10 million for a 16 year old. The percentage increase doesn't matter in this case. It's not like you're paying 2 million for a 1 million pound player.

    I believe it's down to the fact that he's a very young player, potentially winning the league at the age of 20 would be pretty special. Same way if islam feruz who we got from celtic 2 years ago but is 17 years old were to come in and win the league next season(I know it won't happen but you get the similarities)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    .
    Nationality of the players is irrelevant to me. Carra/Gerrard would be seen as more specia because of the fact they are scouse.
    I suppose Wilshere has been at Arsenal since the age of 9 so I can understand that.
    My initial point was - why would Lukaku helping win a trophy mean more to a Chelsea fan than a new purchase like Falcao?
    I can understand length of time at a club being a factor for the fans in relation to a player.
    Pretty expensive.. would you say Walcott has been worth it?
    Nationality isn't completely irrelevant to me. I wouldnt take a poor English player over a good foreigner but all else equal I prefer local players like Wilshere/Jenkinson/Gibbs as I can relate to them. Once a player spends a long time at a club it doesnt really matter. Pires could barely speak English but he felt as much as an Arsenal man as anyone.

    Walcott is worth £9m but I find his £100k salary obscene as for me he's a very limited player. He's a dangerous player to play against but he's relatively easy to complete nullify with a half competent defense. His decent stats hide many poor performances and he has a habit of filling his boots against poor and beaten teams. Case in point is his England career where he scored a hatrick against a poor Croatian side a few years back and hasnt really done anything bar the Sweden performance at the Euros since. Also once he loses his pace his career is essentially over.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    From a young age? He's still at a young age, even if he looks like a 30 year old!
    Fact is, he's been owned by Chelsea for 2 years, and one of which has been spent at WBA - I don't really see any more affinity to that player who's barely featured at the club and then did well in a 3rd year than a new purchase who did well in their 1st year.

    In all of the above examples.. I'd say those players were developed by both clubs? Not sure why you're trying to make it black/white when it's obviously a mixture anyway.

    Would I care more if Henderson helped Liverpool win a trophy over a new purchase? Hell no! A trophy is a trophy and football is a team sport.
    Would I care more if Gerrard won a league title? Yes because he's been Mr Liverpool for quite some time, carried the club, been a superstar player, great captain and comes across like a very nice guy.
    Well in higuains case he was bought at 17, for 8 million and was playing games for river plate regularly. He's the exact same as lukaku. Although terry would be a different case.

    It's the fact that he's a very young player. That's all we're trying to say. Imagine buying a 18/19 year old player and him being a catalyst to your success. It's much better than buying a 26 year old and him doing it. That's all we're saying. He'll be at the club for 3 years and lift a prem by the age of 20 as a main that is pretty special.(assuming we win it next season of course)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam277)
    900k stopped you from getting ronaldo.

    Agree with the second. Our club will be idiots if we were not to play him. If not we can just get drogba back from galatasaray I don't mind.
    When Ronaldo first arrived in England he didnt look like he'd ever be more than a youtube highlights guy so he surprised everyone.

    Wenger pretty much knows every young European player worth knowing. Yaya Toure couldnt get a visa but would have joined, Ibra was invited for a trial but felt insulted (as a 17 year old, got to love that), apparently in 2002 Cech also was ready to join but he had visa problems so we pulled out, Drogba was heavily scouted years before he joined Chelsea, Wenger agreed to sign Makele in 1996 but got Vieira instead. Wenger himself has said that these are just the tip of the iceberg. But then he's had so many great transfers for next to nothing that its hard to complain really.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    When Ronaldo first arrived in England he didnt look like he'd ever be more than a youtube highlights guy so he surprised everyone.

    Wenger pretty much knows every young European player worth knowing. Yaya Toure couldnt get a visa but would have joined, Ibra was invited for a trial but felt insulted (as a 17 year old, got to love that), apparently in 2002 Cech also was ready to join but he had visa problems so we pulled out, Drogba was heavily scouted years before he joined Chelsea, Wenger agreed to sign Makele in 1996 but got Vieira instead. Wenger himself has said that these are just the tip of the iceberg. But then he's had so many great transfers for next to nothing that its hard to complain really.
    Lol, tbf with makalele he got viera. Wish you guys had that same level of players that you used to. Wonder how the old wenger teams would have faired in the prem today? Considering we are better in europe now than that period dominated by italians and spanish.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam277)
    Lol, tbf with makalele he got viera. Wish you guys had that same level of players that you used to. Wonder how the old wenger teams would have faired in the prem today? Considering we are better in europe now than that period dominated by italians and spanish.
    Its such a poor league atm that it that any of the EPL winners 1998-2008 would probably win it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    I don't really see any more affinity to that player who's barely featured at the club and then did well in a 3rd year than a new purchase who did well in their 1st year.

    Would I care more if Henderson helped Liverpool win a trophy over a new purchase? Hell no! A trophy is a trophy and football is a team sport.
    Would I care more if Gerrard won a league title? Yes because he's been Mr Liverpool for quite some time, carried the club, been a superstar player, great captain and comes across like a very nice guy.
    I've already stated above why it'd be better for Lukaku to lead us to the EPL rather than some big name signing such as Falcao. He's a massive fan of Chelsea and there's even a documentary where he states his love for the club. That's why it'd be special. That fan - player relationship. Hence why it was great for Drogba to win us the CL. He said we were his team. He loved us, we loved him.

    It just feels better when a player who is a supporter of the club leads them to the title. You said it yourself you care more if Gerrard wins you the title. But your comparison to Henderson and some new signing is completely irrelevant as Henderson doesn't support Liverpool. He's just another player who hasn't been their for long. Besides he doesn't have the ability to win you a trophy so that scenario isn't plausible.


 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: January 11, 2014
Poll
Which web browser do you use?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.