VillaChris Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Tonne of money? Lukaku and McCarthy are the only two players in their regular line up that cost over 10m. We've spent a lot more than them over the last 6 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 5, 2014 We've spent a lot more than them over the last 6 years. Do you mean spent or do you mean net? And why 6 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted October 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted October 5, 2014 I think we've got a decent chance of somethign against these next week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 We've spent a lot more than them over the last 6 years. Do you mean spent or do you mean net? And why 6 years? If you look at the cost of Everton's starting line up the likes of Baines, Jagielka, Howard were signed 2007 so I should of said 7 years. Howard- signed 2007- 6m. Coleman- signed 2009- for a fiver or whatever it was. Distin- signed 2009- 3m Stones- Signed 2013- 4m Jagielka- signed 2007- 7m Baines - signed 2007- 7m Barry- signed 2014- free transfer Besic- signed 2014- 2m McCarthy- signed 2013- 13m Miralles- Signed 2012- 6m. Lukaku- signed 2014- 28m. So from their regular 14 players it's hardly a ridiculous amount is it? Lukaku obviously inflates things at his fee, their equivalent of our Darren Bent transfer. We'll see in two years time if they're loaning him out to Fulham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oaks Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Barry was £2 million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 We've spent a lot more than them over the last 6 years. Do you mean spent or do you mean net? And why 6 years? If you look at the cost of Everton's starting line up the likes of Baines, Jagielka, Howard were signed 2007 so I should of said 7 years. Howard- signed 2007- 6m. Coleman- signed 2009- for a fiver or whatever it was. Distin- signed 2009- 3m Stones- Signed 2013- 4m Jagielka- signed 2007- 7m Baines - signed 2007- 7m Barry- signed 2014- free transfer Besic- signed 2014- 2m McCarthy- signed 2013- 13m Miralles- Signed 2012- 6m. Lukaku- signed 2014- 28m. So from their regular 14 players it's hardly a ridiculous amount is it? Lukaku obviously inflates things at his fee, their equivalent of our Darren Bent transfer. We'll see in two years time if they're loaning him out to Fulham. Whilst he is not there anymore they also spent about £16m on Feliani. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 (edited) They miss Barkley a lot. Their midfield is too one paced and not dynamic enough without him, They were also missing Coleman, Mirallas and McCarthy who are three important players and still pushed Man. United hard at the end. If we're playing the injury card, they certainly can.Consistancy in standards doesn't seem to apply for many Villa fans when it comes to judging other teams though I have found. So where are the people playing the injury card for us, but at the same time not recognising it for them!? :-/ Edited October 5, 2014 by Morley_crosses_to_Withe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 We've spent a lot more than them over the last 6 years. Do you mean spent or do you mean net? And why 6 years? If you look at the cost of Everton's starting line up the likes of Baines, Jagielka, Howard were signed 2007 so I should of said 7 years. Howard- signed 2007- 6m. Coleman- signed 2009- for a fiver or whatever it was. Distin- signed 2009- 3m Stones- Signed 2013- 4m Jagielka- signed 2007- 7m Baines - signed 2007- 7m Barry- signed 2014- free transfer Besic- signed 2014- 2m McCarthy- signed 2013- 13m Miralles- Signed 2012- 6m. Lukaku- signed 2014- 28m. So from their regular 14 players it's hardly a ridiculous amount is it? Lukaku obviously inflates things at his fee, their equivalent of our Darren Bent transfer. We'll see in two years time if they're loaning him out to Fulham. Whilst he is not there anymore they also spent about £16m on Feliani. Played his part in numerous top 6 finishes and they made a 10m profit on him. It measures up well to the Ireland and N'zogbia deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 They miss Barkley a lot. Their midfield is too one paced and not dynamic enough without him, They were also missing Coleman, Mirallas and McCarthy who are three important players and still pushed Man. United hard at the end. If we're playing the injury card, they certainly can. Consistancy in standards doesn't seem to apply for many Villa fans when it comes to judging other teams though I have found. So where are the people playing the injury card for us, but at the same time not recognising it for them!? :-/ Second half of last season, plenty of people were saying we were having horrendous injuries which were partly responsible for the poor results...when the reality was Vlaar was actually fit for the run in and Okore had been out of the first half of the season when results weren't as poor. Benteke and Kozak were big misses so that was two. Everton today were without 4 first choice players who, 3 would walk into their first 11. If we went to Old Trafford without Delph, Vlaar, Benteke and Cleverley how many would we lose by. It's a moot point but they'll rise up the league table soon enough, I really don't see them not finishing in the top 8. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 6, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 6, 2014 We've spent a lot more than them over the last 6 years. Do you mean spent or do you mean net? And why 6 years? If you look at the cost of Everton's starting line up the likes of Baines, Jagielka, Howard were signed 2007 so I should of said 7 years. Howard- signed 2007- 6m. Coleman- signed 2009- for a fiver or whatever it was. Distin- signed 2009- 3m Stones- Signed 2013- 4m Jagielka- signed 2007- 7m Baines - signed 2007- 7m Barry- signed 2014- free transfer Besic- signed 2014- 2m McCarthy- signed 2013- 13m Miralles- Signed 2012- 6m. Lukaku- signed 2014- 28m. So from their regular 14 players it's hardly a ridiculous amount is it? Lukaku obviously inflates things at his fee, their equivalent of our Darren Bent transfer. We'll see in two years time if they're loaning him out to Fulham. You've not answered either of my two questions, so you mean net spend or gross spend and why did you pick the period of 6 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Second half of last season, plenty of people were saying we were having horrendous injuries which were partly responsible for the poor results...when the reality was Vlaar was actually fit for the run in and Okore had been out of the first half of the season when results weren't as poor. Benteke and Kozak were big misses so that was two. Everton today were without 4 first choice players who, 3 would walk into their first 11. If we went to Old Trafford without Delph, Vlaar, Benteke and Cleverley how many would we lose by. It's a moot point but they'll rise up the league table soon enough, I really don't see them not finishing in the top 8. Fair enough - people did. This isn't a direct comparison between us and them, though. It's a discussion about Everton and I still doubt they'd have expected to be 17th after 6 games. I don't know whether their squad has enough depth to fight it out across three domestic competitions and one in Europe. I also question the wisdom of spanking 28M on Lukaku when it's clear that injuries and suspensions will hit them hard. They'll have nothing like the season they had last year and it wouldn't surprise me whatsoever if they did finish outside the top eight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I also question the wisdom of spanking 28M on Lukaku when it's clear that injuries and suspensions will hit them hard. They've invested £28m on a player who is still only 21 and has scored 32 league goals in the last two seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Lukaku not been the same since he got a permanent deal at a club. Was he a good player playing for a deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I don't think it's anything as sinister as that. I do think he was over priced, Chelsea did very well out of buying Lukaku when he was a teenage prospect and Everton definitely paid the absolute fat end of his market value. He's a reliable 15 goal a season striker, he will hit 20 in good seasons, I can't see him scoring 30 any time soon. He might do what Diego Costa did and blossom into a world class player when he hits his mid 20s but for now the big winners from the deal are Chelsea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG_Villa_Fan Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I don't think it's anything as sinister as that. I do think he was over priced, Chelsea did very well out of buying Lukaku when he was a teenage prospect and Everton definitely paid the absolute fat end of his market value. He's a reliable 15 goal a season striker, he will hit 20 in good seasons, I can't see him scoring 30 any time soon. He might do what Diego Costa did and blossom into a world class player when he hits his mid 20s but for now the big winners from the deal are Chelsea. True but let's not forget that at Lukaku's age Costa was plying his trade on loan at Albacete and Valladolid and not being too prolific at all. Drogba was similar. While it's unlikely Lukaku could hit these players' absolute best he could very well provide more longetivity for the sort of team that could hardly get the chance to attract a player of such quality, so it'd be money well spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Didn't I say that he might blossom to become a world class striker in the message you quoted? I think Lukaku is a superb player but Everton are paying a high premium for potential. Like other players I could mention (David Bentley, Adam Johnson) Lukaku got talked up a lot because of things he didn't do and was included in conversations about higher profile players because of a loose association with them. I don't think there is any doubt that Lukaku became a better player in the media every time Fernando Torres missed a chance for Chelsea and getting mentioned every time Benteke did something good did nothing to harm his reputation either. He is probably exactly what Chelsea wanted in their bid to get around FFP by buying up all the best prospects, farming them out on loan and then selling them for a profit. I'd like there to be a cap on the number of players a club can loan out to stop Chelsea cornering the market and driving up prices like they appear to be doing at the moment but that is a different conversation altogether. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodders0223 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 (edited) Lukaku is a horrible, horrible footballer. His flat track bullying goals don't make up for his awful touch, his awful awareness, his awful team play, his awful passing ability, and his awful football brain. Edited October 6, 2014 by rodders0223 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 That seems like an insane rant. He is clearly a very good player, and really it doesn't matter that much who the goals come against if you are in an upper mid table side. Everton's season won't be dictated on how they perform in the big games against the very best sides, it's about how many of the rest of us they beat and if Lukaku scores in games against the likes of us, Sunderland, West Ham, Southampton, Swansea, Hull (etc) then that is all Everton really need from him. Like a lot of things in life, you don't have to have the best, you just need something which is better than most of your rivals have. Lukaku is definitely that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I think people treat him as older than he is because he's been around since he was 16. To reiterate, he is only 21. He is still quite raw no doubt but then that's only natural. There's still a lot of potential to be harnessed and Martinez is a good coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I think Lukaku will continue to develop. He's actually a very smart guy who loves studying football. With experience, he'll get better because he's able to turn bad days into learning experiences. When he gets to 25/26, injuries permitting, he'll be a frightening opponent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts