04 Jul 2017 12:34:47
A BBC reporter apparently thinks that Lukaku's advisors would rather him sign for United, seems to be a bit of a hold up on his reported move to Chelsea, not sure about the £100m price tag though.


1.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 13:03:49
100 million. That's madness.
50 m is a big price for him.
A few years back they were saying Messi was worth a 100m. And I thought no way. Now they reckon lukaku is.
I understand now why ed002 says don't talk about the money it will only confuse you.


2.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 13:09:13
Lukaku quite clearly wants a move to Chelsea. Raiola however would most likely want a move to your lot as he knows you'll pay him a boatload of money, whereas Chelsea aren't extravagant with their spending.
Chelsea won't pay 100m for Lukaku, I'm pretty sure of that. Granovskaia has the club's valuation in mind and she won't budge on that. So who knows, maybe Lukaku will abandon hope of a Chelsea move happening when Everton refuses to lower their valuation, and then Raiola will engineer a move to United (unless you guys already have Morata by then) .


3.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 13:21:09
Think it is just a ploy to hurry Chelsea up and I believe it would be more like £60-£70m, he will sign for Chelsea.


4.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 13:45:33
Chelsea aren't extravagant in their spending is the best quote I've seen on here in a while!


5.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 14:30:54
Personally I don't care what his "advisors" want, if the player would rather play elsewhere, let him go elsewhere. We want players who want to play for us.


6.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 14:34:48
Torres is still the biggest transfer we've made, GDS2. We're pretty conservative in our spending considering we're a top club with huge money.
We also sell to buy it seems. Care to elaborate why you think it's a funny statement?


7.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 14:53:47
I don't think I need to, if you don't think Chelsea are where they are because of extravagant spending then the conversation is pointless.


8.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 15:53:26
You're about to spend £60m on a left back.


9.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 16:14:05
Don't really want to see lukaku at united good player but not a top class player kane would be perfect morata would be very good to hope he will come don't like what is going on with the transfer's again! linked with every one and no one coming.


10.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 16:52:09
Whatever his destination, looks like it won't be long until we all find out as it looks like Everton are spending his fee 'a la Bale' when he was sold by Spurs. I would be happy with Lukaku, maybe this is one of many big twists to happen? Quiet before the storm? :)


11.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 17:01:00
I hope we stay clear, Nothankyou - Lukaku.

Anonymous 75% of the time I watch Everton, lazy as well, touch of an oaf.

Big, strong, quick, good finisher - but anything over £40m is too much. £100m could probably get us Lewandowski.


12.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 18:36:12
GDS2, the past doesn't really factor into all this. What extravagant spending have Chelsea done over the past couple of years? I'm genuinely wondering how other clubs' fans view this. I know Chelsea fans realize we've cut back on the "big" purchases.


13.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 19:20:46
Sideshow Bob?


14.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 19:51:43
Jackson, the past ALWAYS factors in.

Just look back a few years at Utd, when people were still saying Utd only got where we were because SAF spent big in his early years at Utd.

The fact is he only spent slightly above what other big clubs were paying at the time, and it was over 20 years ago. People still throw it in our face though. We had to deal with it for long enough, now you do, and in a few years City fans will too.


15.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 20:27:16
I'm not here to slate another club. Spending is a part of the sport, and it's necessary to stay at the top. Clubs have to invest large sums to stay competitive.
But all of our big purchases since Torres have been for around 30 to 35 million pounds, which isn't very high when you compare it to what other top clubs have been doing (apart from Bayern, who always seem to get good deals) . That's all I'm saying. Looking at the last couple of seasons we've seen Chelsea become self sustaining as a club. In the past couple of months we've sold Oscar for big money, Ake, Traore, Begovic, Cuadrado. These will likely be followed by the sales of Matic and Costa. Our net spend isn't that high.


16.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 20:31:14
Lol Brendan. the very same as him.


17.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 20:43:23
Jackson, if we changed the names in that post it would match several posts I made 10 years ago alnost word for word.

Other fans though will always remember the big spending though, even if your club spends less than all their rivals for 10 years, it will still be the big spending that people remember.

Don't bother fighting it, it's a waste of energy.


18.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 21:37:55
I'm sorry miss Jackson (woah), you're not for real.

Chelsea are the biggest spenders in the Premier League era. If you aren't extravagant then who is.


19.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 22:19:11
I should perhaps look into the data to see whether you're right on that, Wazza.
But of you're going to call me a girl (6'5 22 year old male, so you're off) and tell me I'm not for real (for no apparent reason at all) I won't bother trying to have a genuine discussion on here. Disappointing as I thought this was a welcoming discussion board.


20.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 22:38:10
Jackson, OutKast can't have escaped you if you're 22, right? Google Ms. Jackson - OutKast and thank me later. I'm sure no insults were intended.


21.) 04 Jul 2017
04 Jul 2017 22:48:17
Jackson its just a reference to a song called 'miss Jackson' mate, I think by the band outkast?

I think the stat is correct but yes as of late Chelsea do seem to have reigned in their large spending and I can't lie I think Chelsea have got a good sales team in as you always get top dollar for your player sales whilst united were happy to sell for cheap (seems to be changing now thankfully) .

You did though pump huge money into your club with abromaviches take over.


22.) 05 Jul 2017
05 Jul 2017 07:05:04
Oh yeah, the song, I remember it now. Apologies, Wazza, it'd been a long day and I didn't see the reference at first. That's my bad.
As you said, Sparky, Roman invested huge money in the club in his first couple of years. But since Torres it seems like the board has become more prudent in their spending. And it's for that very reason that I still fear we'll let Lukaku go to another club (i. e. United) . You guys will almost certainly be willing to pay more for him. We'll see how it plays out. Just maybe leave one of Morata and Lukaku for us, mkay? :-P.


23.) 05 Jul 2017
05 Jul 2017 08:32:54
I think Jackson has a point. When Roman took over they spent huge amounts of money to take that step up now they are winning things they seem more sensible. It's a bit like the reverse of United, when we were winning everything SAF used to refer to no value in the market, now we have struggled a bit (compared to previous years) we are splashing the cash to get back in there.

Some clubs are very good at buying and selling, we do seem to get prices hiked, probably because we have the only, and Woody see, s daft enough to pay it,