Romelu Lukaku

[DiegoMilito22]

Paying 40m for Lukaku was already a stupid decision. Let alone paying that much for a "Lukaku who has been negotiating with Juve for months".

 

[kurt0411]

Only being forced to sell one player does not automatically mean if you sell a second the owner is going to allow you to spend the full transfer fee. Come on man, if you’re going to claim I don’t understand the sport give me something insightful.

We made a 115 million and spent 35 million. We couldn’t even get Vlahovic who was available for 60

Thank god we sold him for that price otherwise who knows where we’ll be right now. Barella and Lautaro wouldn’t be Inter players I’m pretty sure

 

[thatdude]

sure, unplanned, but still - we clearly needed the money. That year we still posted a MASSIVE loss, no? like 120mil? I cant remember exactly, but it was frigging massive, and thats with all the plusvalenza factored in

Sure, but then the ownership can be ok with a loss of a certain size and decide to sell one player. That is what was reported by reliable journalists. I’m not saying they are the end all and be all but let’s not pretend we know more. It’s pure speculation on our end, at least they have sources inside the club.

 

[pupivn]

We made a 115 million and spent 35 million. We couldn’t even get Vlahovic who was available for 60

Thank god we sold him for that price otherwise who knows where we’ll be right now. Barella and Lautaro wouldn’t be Inter players I’m pretty sure

Sorry but I don’t think we made 115m, we brought him like 70/75m with big wage, plus Vlahovic only wanted Juve back then, even we had money, it’s not like he’s coming to us

 

[junkie]

I know Onana is seen as directly related to Lukaku, but Onana really is a significant (+50mil) plusvalenza that allows us to invest in 3 different positions in the team, and bring in a young keeper who could (hopefully) be the future of this club

I'd love to see our average age last season vs this season, its dropped significantly i think

this is not so good thing as some think, we had age but we had expirience that brought us to CL final

 

[RickyMaravilla'sRightFoot]

What the fuck is with this tendency to call everyone who criticize Lukaku a racist lately on here?

completely absurd that people are doing this.

Anyway: FLAME RS PARADISE FLAME RS PARADISE (set to the tune of gooble-gobble).

 

[Glass box]

Sorry but I don’t think we made 115m, we brought him like 70/75m with big wage, plus Vlahovic only wanted Juve back then, even we had money, it’s not like he’s coming to us

The 115m we received were two years after we paid 75m. Hakimi was sold for 70m and we didn't need to sell anyone else that summer, Lukaku himself wanted the move. Lukaku's sale was profit and not a necessity.

Too bad we wasted what we could from his sale on fucking Correa.

 

[wera]

The only thing that makes me upset about this saga is we passed on Dybala on a free for this guy. Nothing else. Cannavaro 2.0 for me.

Exactly. Such a shame. He wanted Inter.

 

[NimAraya]

What the fuck is with this tendency to call everyone who criticize Lukaku a racist lately on here?

If they had a functional brain they wouldn't bring the racist card to win an argument. Black this, black that. It's the only way they can force their view on the others. Totally douche behavior.

 

[thatdude]

We made a 115 million and spent 35 million. We couldn’t even get Vlahovic who was available for 60

Thank god we sold him for that price otherwise who knows where we’ll be right now. Barella and Lautaro wouldn’t be Inter players I’m pretty sure

The lack of money available for a replacement does not equate to the need for the second sale. It only helps to explain the motive behind picking Hakimi to sell instead of Lukaku initially. To be fair to management it is usually easier to replace a wingback than a 20+ goal striker.

The point as I’m also explaining to @.h. is that we were only going to be forced to make one sale. It needed to be done before the end of the fiscal year. We put Hakimi on the market and had an immediate taker in PSG. Lukaku was never on the market, we were approached by Chelsea late in the window with a massive offer.

That decision made by management is what’s frustrating because in the end we lost both players. Lukaku was never forced out, he left because of the increased salary and some bullshit redemption arc in his mind. Meanwhile many on this forum that summer were screaming from the very beginning that Lukaku should have been the “sacrifice” all along. They were right. We would have certainly been better off with Hakimi + Dzeko instead of Dumfries + Dzeko/Correa.

And that’s before we even get into passing on Dybala last summer. Clown show.

 

[.h.]

The lack of money available for a replacement does not equate to the need for the second sale. It only helps to explain the motive behind picking Hakimi to sell instead of Lukaku initially. To be fair to management it is usually easier to replace a wingback than a 20+ goal striker.

The point as I’m also explaining to @.h. is that we were only going to be forced to make one sale. It needed to be done before the end of the fiscal year. We put Hakimi on the market and had an immediate taker in PSG. Lukaku was never on the market, we were approached by Chelsea late in the window with a massive offer.

That decision made by management is what’s frustrating because in the end we lost both players. Lukaku was never forced out, he left because of the increased salary and some bullshit redemption arc in his mind. Meanwhile many on this forum that summer were screaming from the very beginning that Lukaku should have been the “sacrifice” all along. They were right. We would have certainly been better off with Hakimi + Dzeko instead of Dumfries + Dzeko/Correa.

And that’s before we even get into passing on Dybala last summer. Clown show.

you make a vey good point there

Hakimi was sold to cover 20-21, Lukaku covered 21-22. We didnt have to sell anyone major in 21-22 except Casedei IIRC? Or maybe not even him in that year (eg June 22)

 

[kurt0411]

The lack of money available for a replacement does not equate to the need for the second sale. It only helps to explain the motive behind picking Hakimi to sell instead of Lukaku initially. To be fair to management it is usually easier to replace a wingback than a 20+ goal striker.

The point as I’m also explaining to @.h. is that we were only going to be forced to make one sale. It needed to be done before the end of the fiscal year. We put Hakimi on the market and had an immediate taker in PSG. Lukaku was never on the market, we were approached by Chelsea late in the window with a massive offer.

That decision made by management is what’s frustrating because in the end we lost both players. Lukaku was never forced out, he left because of the increased salary and some bullshit redemption arc in his mind. Meanwhile many on this forum that summer were screaming from the very beginning that Lukaku should have been the “sacrifice” all along. They were right. We would have certainly been better off with Hakimi + Dzeko instead of Dumfries + Dzeko/Correa.

And that’s before we even get into passing on Dybala last summer. Clown show

My guy, what you’re saying is irrelevant. If we didn’t sell Lukaku that summer it would have been Barella/Lautaro the following year. It’s obvious by how we chose to replace Lukaku and Hakimi. We were and still are bleeding money

 

[thatdude]

you make a vey good point there

Hakimi was sold to cover 20-21, Lukaku covered 21-22. We didnt have to sell anyone major in 21-22 except Casedei IIRC? Or maybe not even him in that year (eg June 22)

Yeah that could very well be the case. Then this year we got the CL money which probably made it so we could take our time and not rush to make a sale before 6/30 again. Now it actually seems like our sales are funding our market. However, it’s tough to compare periods, because so much with this clubs is in flux. We just got a new Nike deal, shirt sponsor, etc. while at the same time lowering our wage bill. All these things play a factor so it’s hard to compare apples to apples and know the clubs exact needs unless they’re shared via media like that summer.

 

[tonyclifton]

Just move on from this mofo already.

Get another forward. Or just play Thuram alongside Lautaro next season.

 

[.h.]

Yeah that could very well be the case. Then this year we got the CL money which probably made it so we could take our time and not rush to make a sale before 6/30 again. Now it actually seems like our sales are funding our market. However, it’s tough to compare periods, because so much with this clubs is in flux. We just got a new Nike deal, shirt sponsor, etc. while at the same time lowering our wage bill. All these things play a factor so it’s hard to compare apples to apples and know the clubs exact needs unless they’re shared via media like that summer.

yeah, i dont disagree, but in the context of lukaku it seems like the original sale was needed from a financial perspective, backed up by two points of evidence that we didnt sell anyone major subsequently in that season, and, we only spent like 30mil of his book impact that year

anyway it doesnt matter too much

 

[TheNetworkZ]

I'm actually glad we aren't going to bring him back now. Seeing him go to juve should make us all smile, what a match made in heaven.

I wish it meant we would keep Onana but oh well.

 

[Universe]

Thank fuck this tool has (inadvertently) saved us from ourselves.

 

[Il Drago]

I read Lukaku was a personal request of Allegri. This is gonna be fun.

 

[Suraj]

this guy has to have mental illness though right? like the rivalry thing it doesn't matter to him, he's a whore i get that. but getting racially abused there not even 3-4 months ago?? and if the getting pissed at the not starting in CL final (understandable too) but why was he twerking all last month to come back and even turned down saudi money? and rube right now in the current state with no europe? it makes no damn sense

 

[ElDuccio]

Thank fuck this tool has (inadvertently) saved us from ourselves.

well, i really liked him and was sure that he is the best solution. But i was never thinking that we would end offering 40M for him. It's too much considering that he's 31 soon, it's exactly why we wanted to sell Brozo, we are broke and can't take risks for the future.