Just read some quotes from his agent on a Norwegian football site. He confirms that they are just about to conclude a loan deal for his client. What he says goes something like this: "I can confirm that Romelu is NOT joining Fulham. We're working on finalising the details these days with another Premier League club. I can not disclose which team or when, but it is close." The headline reads "Lukaku to be loaned to Chelsea rival", but that is just down to the journo's creative freedom IMO. What do you think, could it be us? And more importantly should we do it?
Have I mentioned how much I hate loans (without options)? Particularly season long ones. Worse than signing a 30 something on a year long deal. Much worse. Ultimate short termism with significantly more benefit to the loaner than loanee. Smacks of desperation - hate them.
Regarding recent events I'd be very surprised if we do any business with Chelsea. That along with what Matt said above.
Argh. Imagine a shock loan for JT... I think I'd hysterically cry, followed by a fit and spontaneous combustion.
The Beeb have him headin towards West Brom. Flyer, I'm starting to think that Hughes will use Mackie as the first reserve striker - what do you recon?
Matt sometimes these loan players improve the performance and attitude of the club players. Any news on Hargreaves?
I dont see Mackie as a target man type but he may do. Lukaku is a big strong guy and would be good to have for a year if we cant buy our own option. He was sold for £18m last season.
To be fair, not really seen a great deal of him. No idea if this would be a good deal or not. All we really have to go on is the huge fee Chelski paid for him. He is a big strong lad with a point to prove, so could be a good deal...but I dont see how the scouts could form a decent opinion, as he has not had much game time since arriving. Still, its gotta be a better deal than Macheda!?!?
Still with West Brom I thought? edit - http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11698/7960921/Baggies-reject-Odemwingie-bid
Much more often that the loans improve the prospect of them doing well for another club and I personally think the older wiser heads of 30+ year olds on one year deals can influence the squad better. I was thinking of KW when typing the original message. I can't fault that as a response and I thought he was great (and am sure that I'm not the only one thrilled that he's doing so well and proud that he played for us so recently and the fact that we all said he be an international within two years). Although we had money, a player of that class was well beyond our buying means and so there was a larger benefit than we have now with loans. Would Lukaku be better than say Hoilett, Cisse or Tarbs? Possibly not so probably not worth it. Would Chelsea be better off for him playing regularly for us? Definitely. I also still think that the Fabio loan was used to ease through the Park deal. Fabio's still good but he's not the kind of player yet that is so out of our league that we couldn't be trying to buy a similar class player ourselves. If he turns into that class player, he'll be at United and we'll be a distant memory.
Disagree, look at what Walker did with us, Naughton did with Norwich and Caulker did with Swansea. Young players on loan play balls out to impress their parent club while old players are usually just after one last big payday. Lukaku would play the big man role, the only other player competing for that is Zamora.
It's not progress though - we'll be in exactly the same position next year - lacking the player to cover Zamora with BZ himself being a year older. The older heads (if well chosen) would be ones with influence who might be looking to coach or manage (not retire). Walker did very well and then we ended up with Orr in the Premiership because we'd just lost our first choce full back for nothing. As I said, we gained more from him than we stand to do with loans these days but it was a temporary solution rather than a long term fix. I just question why we need them at all (unless there's an option to buy).
To play devils advocate, what if the right player isn't currently available, and Hughes thinks he'll replace Zamora in the first team next season any way? In that case, taking a loan in until we find the right replacement would save us money in the long run!
Fair point although it sounds like putting all of your eggs into one basket. It generally seems like there are a few targets for each posible purchase. If Zamora went next season then we'd be two down compared to having a loanee this year and BZ. That's twice the gap to fill. I think I'm starting to sound like a bit of a boring twat now so perhaps I'll retire from this one and we'll let time tell (this one's probably another dud story anyway...).
