Summer Transfer Window 2017/18 - Rumours & Signings

McBain · 6 Jul 2017 at 11:43

£75million for Lukaku seems absolutely bonkers to me. From what i've seen of him he has a tendency to go missing when he's really needed, obviously still a top player when he's on his game mind.

If I was a United fan I think i'd prefer Lukaku over Morata, proven PL goal scorer etc etc.

Janesy B · 6 Jul 2017 at 11:45

bloodline76 said:
Let's see who is laughing at the end of the season.

Loads of lacazette hate in here. His conversion rate is amazing and he will get tons of chances at Arsenal.

Defence we are covered. Two promising Eng u21 plus Kol and mustafi.

Midfield we probably have too many

Lacazette is a Europa league level striker. 10 of his 28 Ligue 1 goals were from the penalty spot. He's 26 and scored a single international goal in a friendly and that's it. Vincent Janssen came from the Eredivisie as top scorer, came to the PL and couldn't buy a goal.

Koscielny has long term injury issues. Cazorla's career is pretty much done too.

Lord-Jaffa · 6 Jul 2017 at 11:45

I just remember when Lukaku absolutey tore united apart a few seasons back. If we get that version week in week out then great, but it will be the lazy not interested version

Stumble Bum · 6 Jul 2017 at 11:46

BaZ87 said:
Raiola often uses Jim White as his mouthpiece.

What? I honestly have no idea what your criticism of the formula is.

You do realise that Utd's turnover in 2002 was just £175m. £30m was over 17% of Utd's turnover. Utd last season turnover around £570 - £75m will be around 13% of turnover. Whichever way you want to look at it, £75m on Lukaku is a lot less than £30m on Ferdinand in 2002.

edit: The formula is far from perfect and you can get your odd anomaly but as a general rule and to give you a rough idea of inflation in football it's very useful.

And while of course everybody has more money now (that's the inflation I mentioned), Utd are actually more richer than the rest (as a whole) now than in 2002.

Ummmm no, the highest transfer ever was for circa £89 mil. Rio Ferdinand a defender would not be signed for £130 mil. Nowhere near.

Tombstone · 6 Jul 2017 at 11:51

Lord-Jaffa said:
I just remember when Lukaku absolutey tore united apart a few seasons back. If we get that version week in week out then great, but it will be the lazy not interested version

I fear what may happen is that you will get the former, until he has settled, and then you will get the latter.

BaZ87 · 6 Jul 2017 at 11:51

Lukaku a safe bet score the goals that Zlatan scored last season so from that perspective he's a good signing for Utd. The challenge for Utd now is to add to what they had last season not just match it because that wasn't enough.

Stumble Bum said:
Ummmm no, the highest transfer ever was for circa £89 mil. Rio Ferdinand a defender would not be signed for £130 mil. Nowhere near.

Have you completely misunderstood the point of the post? Read my first post - a group of statto's have created a formula to inflate historical transfer fees into the price they would have been today. Spending £10m in 1999 was a hell of a lot more than spending £10m today for instance.

Stumble Bum · 6 Jul 2017 at 11:54

BaZ87 said:
Lukaku a safe bet score the goals that Zlatan scored last season so from that perspective he's a good signing for Utd. The challenge for Utd now is to add to what they had last season not just match it because that wasn't enough.

Have you completely misunderstood the point of the post? Read my first post - a group of statto's have created a formula to inflate historical transfer fees into the price they would have been today. Spending £10m in 1999 was a hell of a lot more than spending £10m today for instance.

It's called a logic check. I fully understand the flawed principle you are using to adjust past transfer prices but no matter what you say, the fact that you think Rio would go for £130 mil today is laughable.

BaZ87 · 6 Jul 2017 at 11:55

Stumble Bum said:
It's called a logic check. I fully understand the flawed principle you are using to adjust past transfer prices but no matter what you say, the fact that you think Rio would go for £130 mil today is laughable.

I didn't say he would go for £130m today. I said spending £30m on him in 2002 is the same as £130m today as that's the rate in which transfer prices have increased.

Stumble Bum · 6 Jul 2017 at 11:56

I give up

BaZ87 · 6 Jul 2017 at 12:01

Stumble Bum said:
I give up

That sounds like a good idea seeing as you seemingly don't understand the point that's been made.

Again, I'm not saying somebody would pay £130m for Ferdinand today. I've said that the rate in which transfer fees have increased, £30m in 2002 was the same as £130m today. Even if you don't like the formula that's been created and you look purely at transfer fees as a percentage of a clubs turnover, the £30m in 2002 as a % of turnover would equal around £100m today.

Shamikebab · 6 Jul 2017 at 12:04

Yeah a lot of people forget how rich we are when talking about our transfer fees.

grimm · 6 Jul 2017 at 12:10

Tombstone said:
And the insane prices continue... 75m for Lukaku? Means he is priced higher than Luis Suarez just 3 years ago. The market prices for players has just gone batturd crazy in the last couple of years. Average defenders being thrown about for 50m, average midfielders being thrown about for 60m, average strikers being thrown about for 75m. Its utterly ridiculous. I'm in the wrong line of work, I should be a football agent, easy money.

Luis Suarez was an absolute bargain though.

cm1179 · 6 Jul 2017 at 12:11

ferdinand became one of the best central defenders the prem has ever seen, one of the best in the world at a time when there were some very high quality central defenders about

in all fairness, £75m is probably about right in the current (inflated) market but he's not going to set uniteds attack on fire

Tombstone · 6 Jul 2017 at 12:30

grimm said:
Luis Suarez was an absolute bargain though.

If just 3 years later , Lukaku is priced at 10m more than Suarez, I'd say that Suarez was an absolute steal at his price

grimm · 6 Jul 2017 at 12:33

Tombstone said:
If just 3 years later , Lukaku is priced at 10m more than Suarez, I'd say that Suarez was an absolute steal at his price

I think that Suarez was in the process of running down his contract (and therefore value) as well. Not to mention all the negative PR surrounding Suarez probably helped that deal along.

BaZ87 · 6 Jul 2017 at 12:34

Even in those 3 years Suarez's fee would be more than Lukaku's today. Without wanting to confuse certain people any more, you also need to look at a players age when valuing them too. Even at the same price, Suarez at 27 would be more expensive than a player who's just 24 years old. If for example you assume that any player would be past their best at around 33 years old, you're getting just 6 years out of Suarez compared to 9 years from Lukaku.

And no, Suarez wasn't running down his contract. He literally signed a new contract 6 months earlier.

dannyjo22 · 6 Jul 2017 at 12:42

Football inflation, surely to be bundled with the same guff as more shirt sales?

grimm · 6 Jul 2017 at 12:42

BaZ87 said:
Even in those 3 years Suarez's fee would be more than Lukaku's today. Without wanting to confuse certain people any more, you also need to look at a players age when valuing them too. Even at the same price, Suarez at 27 would be more expensive than a player who's just 24 years old. If for example you assume that any player would be past their best at around 33 years old, you're getting just 6 years out of Suarez compared to 9 years from Lukaku.

And no, Suarez wasn't running down his contract. He literally signed a new contract 6 months earlier.

Why would you sign a new contract and then leave months later unless it was all part of the plan? There was clearly something going on there. He apparently left for less than his release clause as well.

omnomnom · 6 Jul 2017 at 12:59

Awful deal for Everton really. Lost a player on 90k a week and will sign Rooney on three times that. Big fee but they are losing 20 league goals a season and replacing him with a past it Rooney.

Tombstone · 6 Jul 2017 at 13:02

BaZ87 said:
Even in those 3 years Suarez's fee would be more than Lukaku's today. Without wanting to confuse certain people any more, you also need to look at a players age when valuing them too. Even at the same price, Suarez at 27 would be more expensive than a player who's just 24 years old. If for example you assume that any player would be past their best at around 33 years old, you're getting just 6 years out of Suarez compared to 9 years from Lukaku.

And no, Suarez wasn't running down his contract. He literally signed a new contract 6 months earlier.

I think I would much rather have 6 years of Suarez than 9 of Lukaku