Romelu Lukaku


Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd rather we played players like Wickham then or it's completely pointless having them.

At the minute, I don't honestly know if wickham is ready, I hope he is, that would be fantastic. But if we did go with Wickham and he didn't produce, this place would be in meltdown, and the lad may lose confidence. He has potential, I hope he realises it with us, but is he a premiership regular right now?
 
At the minute, I don't honestly know if wickham is ready, I hope he is, that would be fantastic. But if we did go with Wickham and he didn't produce, this place would be in meltdown, and the lad may lose confidence. He has potential, I hope he realises it with us, but is he a premiership regular right now?

But we don't know if Lukaku is ready. We're essentially paying to help out Chelsea. Plus, he'll miss two games right away (against Chelsea). I'd stay well clear. Yeah, get him on loan with a view to signing him but we certainly shouldn't be loaning a player to then allow them to piss off if they've done well.
 
But we don't know if Lukaku is ready. We're essentially paying to help out Chelsea. Plus, he'll miss two games right away (against Chelsea). I'd stay well clear. Yeah, get him on loan with a view to signing him but we certainly shouldn't be loaning a player to then allow them to piss off if they've done well.

I am not saying and haven't said we should loan lukaku, I don't know enough about him. What I have said is that I haven't got an issue with loans alongside permanent deals, if it improves us. I know bendtner wasn't amazing last season, but I reckon we would have been worse without him.
 
I am not saying and haven't said we should loan lukaku, I don't know enough about him. What I have said is that I haven't got an issue with loans alongside permanent deals, if it improves us. I know bendtner wasn't amazing last season, but I reckon we would have been worse without him.

Yeah I agree, if we loan a player as backup. I think the issue is when we loan a player and are totally reliant on them to the point of having to replace them once they leave. I can see the merits of getting a loan player in but I think signing a foreign player would be more advantageous than loaning from within the same league.
 
Yeah I agree, if we loan a player as backup. I think the issue is when we loan a player and are totally reliant on them to the point of having to replace them once they leave. I can see the merits of getting a loan player in but I think signing a foreign player would be more advantageous than loaning from within the same league.

Spot on...as another poster said, it is just a vicious circle you do not get out of. We have headed this way since the departing of bent, gyan and possibly jones, and we now need to claw ourselves back out of it.
 
I have to say if we DO get Lukaku on loan and he has a cracking season (or longer) with us I will do my very best to get a top chef to cook the hats of those who doubted him so I can watch them munch down every last bit.
 
I know how it works pal and I stick by my point, but I'll qualify it slightly: if there is no possibility of making a loan move permanent, then we should avoid loan moves in the first place, as you cannot build for the longer term future using loans where players are unlikely to stay. We're not a newly-promoted team looking for scraps of quality off the table of a big team anymore.


Why turn down a loan move if they are a fkn good player? If they improve our team, go for it.

If they do the business then we end up further up the table and for fuck all, whats not to like? THEN we can use our higher position and money to buy better players. Player may then harker for a move to us and force the feeder teams hand to get his move to the team he has fallen in love with. Even if not if they ever do move they will always see our team as an option.

It works, if done right. Saying NO loans ever unless fee is just silly.

Would you refuse Man City loaning us Johnson for a season for instance? I wouldn't. Adebayor? As said previously there has been some good loans out there if the club can get them.

Was Evans a bad loan move? Loans work, just gotta use our heads and make it beneficial for the club.
 
What is he anyway, striker, winger what ?? I agree with Randy aswell, unless it can be made permanent we are wasting our money, time and resources on a player whose head wouldnt be with the team for the last few months of the season anyway.
 
I have to say if we DO get Lukaku on loan and he has a cracking season (or longer) with us I will do my very best to get a top chef to cook the hats of those who doubted him so I can watch them munch down every last bit.

I don't think many, if any, are doubting Lukaku as a player. Just questioning whether short-term loans should have any part in Sunderland's long-term strategy.
 
Spot on...as another poster said, it is just a vicious circle you do not get out of. We have headed this way since the departing of bent, gyan and possibly jones, and we now need to claw ourselves back out of it.

If Lukaku scored us loads of goals and got us into Europe, thats a vicious circle?

We would be in a much better position to sign better players than we are currently. So would work on so many levels.
 
Why turn down a loan move if they are a fkn good player? If they improve our team, go for it.

If they do the business then we end up further up the table and for fuck all, whats not to like? THEN we can use our higher position and money to buy better players. Player may then harker for a move to us and force the feeder teams hand to get his move to the team he has fallen in love with. Even if not if they ever do move they will always see our team as an option.

It works, if done right. Saying NO loans ever unless fee is just silly.

Would you refuse Man City loaning us Johnson for a season for instance? I wouldn't. Adebayor? As said previously there has been some good loans out there if the club can get them.

Was Evans a bad loan move? Loans work, just gotta use our heads and make it beneficial for the club.

When we brought Evans in we were newcomers to the league. I don't there's been another side in the league that has been more reliant on loans than we have. And look where it's gotten us. 6th consecutive season in the premiership this coming season and we still need 4 or 5 players.
 
What is he anyway, striker, winger what ?? I agree with Randy aswell, unless it can be made permanent we are wasting our money, time and resources on a player whose head wouldnt be with the team for the last few months of the season anyway.

You know he wont give a fuck at the end of the loan for fact?

How are we wasting money? What money? loan fee and x wages (you dont always pay all their wages either, loan team might even pay them so we develop him over the season by playing him).

When we brought Evans in we were newcomers to the league. I don't there's been another side in the league that has been more reliant on loans than we have. And look where it's gotten us. 6th consecutive season in the premiership this coming season and we still need 4 or 5 players.

Nail on head

So it's worked to some degree. Yes we need players still, but we needed them from day one so are no worse off and are established.
 
If Lukaku scored us loads of goals and got us into Europe, thats a vicious circle?

We would be in a much better position to sign better players than we are currently. So would work on so many levels.

No, the vicious circle is loaning 5 players that you know are leaving come the end of the season, and every summer you need to replace them, there is no continuity or stability in that. I agree with you, loans are good if done correctly. My preference would be sign permanent players, but if you get offered a nugget.. You damn well take it.
 
You know he wont give a fuck at the end of the loan for fact?

How are we wasting money? What money? loan fee and x wages (you dont always pay all their wages either, loan team might even pay them so we develop him over the season by playing him).



Nail on head

So it's worked to some degree. Yes we need players still, but we needed them from day one so are no worse off and are established.

And then lose him at the end of the season and have to replace him again if we were too reliant,ad infinitum. Which other club had an ever-present loan striker playing for them competing for a top ten place? Adebayor was always on loan with a view to signing permanently and he is perhaps the only one that's been on loan to a top club in recent years.

Even clubs like Stoke and Norwich aren't overly-reliant on loans. However it's been very much part of our strategy for a few years. I see this signing is perhaps a sign of desperation. I hope I'm wrong though.
 
Last edited:
yeah, like we are in a position to pick and choose at the moment, the Arsenal game 10 days away, Sess injured, struggling for goals, we need a need a good foward to give us some sort of chance of getting something at Arsenal, and the Reading game the week after.

I'd rather have a prospect on loan than spunk 12 million quid on a mediocre player.

no brainer for me, and I'd like to see the club fuck that Moxey character off too.
 
I have to say if we DO get Lukaku on loan and he has a cracking season (or longer) with us I will do my very best to get a top chef to cook the hats of those who doubted him so I can watch them munch down every last bit.

He could be a good player. He may yet go on loan and do well here or anywhere else, that's not necessarily in doubt. The issue is that we have a few prospect-like youngsters already, we need proven Premiership goalscorers.
 
Would Lukaku even represent an upgrade on Wickham? We'd be replacing our own young, in need of experience striker, with another young striker who needs experience. It would be an odd move unless we're absolutely convinced he's ready to play regularly.
 
Chelsea fans reckons he'll be the next Drogba. He's f***ing huge and only 20.

I'd definitely chance him like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top