Romelu Lukaku

antonnn

Blue Blooded Aussie
Youth development is strictly business

By anybody's standards, it's an impressive piece of business. Three years ago, Chelsea signed Romelu Lukaku from Anderlecht for 11 million pounds, with a further 7 million payable depending on whether the young forward met a variety of performance and achievement targets. Given that he made only 10 Premier League appearances for the Stamford Bridge side, it is unlikely he managed to do so.

On Wednesday, Chelsea sold him to Everton for a fee that could rise as high as 28 million pounds. Take away the wages they paid him for his first season at Chelsea -- about 60,000 per week, or about 3 million -- and the same again for the portion they covered during his two loan spells, first at West Bromwich Albion in 2012-13 and then at Goodison Park last season, and you are still left with a potential profit in the order of 11 million pounds.

Well done, then, to all concerned. Cigars all round.

At first glance, there are no losers in the story of Lukaku's time in west London. Chelsea have their profit. Everton have their striker. Lukaku is a full Belgian international, a top-class Premier League forward, and a very rich man with the peak years of his career still ahead of him.

True, perhaps if he had remained at Anderlecht for the last three years, he would now be on the verge of joining one of Europe's superpowers -- a Barcelona, a Real Madrid, a Chelsea -- and, true, perhaps if Anderlecht had held on to him for longer, the Belgian side might have gotten an eye-watering fee for him. But they did not do too badly -- 11 million pounds, minus a 3.3 million payment to his family -- and who knows whether Lukaku would have fulfilled his potential playing in the altogether less-rarefied surrounds of his homeland. Everyone, when all is said and done, is a winner.

And yet there is something slightly unedifying about the entire episode. It is this: In terms of football's traditional values, the story of Lukaku and Chelsea is a failure. The club signed one of Europe's most promising players, at some considerable cost, to be the heir to Didier Drogba, and it did not work out. But in terms of football's new reality, that does not matter at all. Chelsea will not feel any embarrassment about signing Lukaku in 2011. They will be delighted they did so.

This is because player development, at the world's largest clubs, is no longer about football. It is about business. It is not about honing talent. It is about making profits. It is run according to the rules of the hedge fund -- spread your risk to ensure your reward -- with a mindset borrowed from property development. Nurturing young players is not a team's primary concern, just as a developer does not refit houses to live in them. Chelsea and their peers are not crafting young players. They are flipping them.

It is not just Chelsea. Manchester City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester United and Tottenham are all doing it. Barcelona's attempts to join in the fun ended up with them being hit with a FIFA transfer ban (which has since been suspended). Porto and Benfica, Udinese and Parma, Ajax and Feyenoord: The methods and aims vary, but the principle is the same. Agents Jorge Mendes and Gestifute, Nelio Lucas and Doyen do it, as does the Aspire Academy in Qatar.

Chelsea, though, are doing it best. Their structure and their process are ingenious. They trawl Europe -- and, occasionally, further afield -- for young players. They sign them from their native clubs, bring them to their Cobham training base, and give them the benefit of some of the best facilities and coaching in the world.

Then the club send them out on loan, often to Vitesse Arnhem, their partner club in Holland, but sometimes -- as with Lukaku -- to other clubs in the Premier League (or, as in the case of Thibaut Courtois to Atletico Madrid, to a suitable side abroad).

A very few, like Courtois, will one day be brought back and assimilated into the first team. If manager Jose Mourinho is telling the truth, then the same might have happened to Lukaku, if he had been prepared to prove his worth. The majority, though, will never make the grade for Chelsea. They will, at some point, be sold on, a premium fee guaranteed by having attended finishing school at one of the world's elite clubs. Chelsea are essentially running a recruitment and development business completely unrelated to their first team.

Their motive is not just the accrual of profit. Mourinho pointed out Wednesday, as he discussed Lukaku's sale, that Chelsea's strategy is designed to maximise efficiency under the rules of Financial Fair Play. Investment in their youth structures is exempt from FFP. But the money the club raise by selling players is not. They are making their money work for them. As one observer put it to me Wednesday, they are "gaming" FFP.

This is not illegal. It is completely within the rules. It is also not immoral. Chelsea would claim that they are, in fact, giving these young players the best chance of fulfilling their potential, by giving them access to the sort of coaching and facilities that most can only dream about. That is certainly the view of Aspire, the Qatar-funded project that has given a chance to dozens of players from Africa that they would not otherwise get. Like the Lukaku deal, it is a win-win for all concerned.

Except, of course, that it is not. The Netherlands squad at this summer's World Cup contained a host of players from Feyenoord, the Dutch club whose financial strictures had forced it to trust its youth system to provide the core of its side over the course of the last six years. For five years in a row, they have been voted the best academy in Holland.

Damien Hertog, the man who oversees their work, knows that the likes of Stefan de Vrij, Jordy Clasie and Bruno Martins Indi will move on as soon as they have made it. Indeed, Feyenoord not only accept that they will go but, to some extent, encourage it. Those fees are how they sustain themselves and ensure that they never again skirt with financial oblivion.

But, speaking to The Times last month, Hertog admitted that when English clubs come and poach young players before they are ripe -- as was the case with Rodney Kongolo, the 16-year-old brother of Terence, who moved to Manchester City -- it "is not good for the club as the fee is not as big, it is not good for the player because they need to play to develop, and it is probably not good for the English national team, either, to have so many places in academies taken up by foreign players."

By scouring the world for youngsters, the vulture clubs are depriving the game's lesser powers of crucial funds, and by extension, are starving their native leagues of quality. For every Lukaku who makes it, there are many others who do not, who return to their homelands without the scope for a successful career, and to base a judgment of what is right or praiseworthy on the exception is foolhardy in the extreme.

Indeed, if Lukaku -- who cost 11 million pounds and was already playing first-team football -- cannot make it, then what about the chances of those who are signed earlier in their development, who do not have the Belgian's unquestionable ability?

Just because Lukaku did develop into a Premier League player in Chelsea's system does not mean that it's the only way to bring young players through, or even that it's the best. Hertog, like many others, identifies playing high-level, competitive football as the crucial final stage in any player's development. For the few sent on loan to Atletico or Porto or Vitesse, that stage comes. For those farmed out to the lower leagues, or not at all, it does not.

Chelsea and the others are hedging their risk, but they are also interfering with the natural course of events. Hertog knows there is little that can be done to stop it. EU law means that this harvesting of young talent will continue; it is hard to chastise Chelsea and the others for doing it when it is not illegal and it is not wrong.

Perhaps, then, what is required is a clearer understanding of what that offer from a top Premier League club to a young prospect means. It is not a dream move. It is simply a business deal. They will polish you up. They will coach you and train you and guide you through. They may turn you into a player, if you are the lucky one of many.

However, they will likely not turn you into a player for them because, to them, you are a commodity, a property, and you are there to be flipped.
All about da moniez$$$
 

Alarcón

New member
Honestly, I think the amount of players you can loan out should be restricted. What Chelsea do is just ridiculous.
 

antonnn

Blue Blooded Aussie
What Really Went Wrong with Romelu Lukaku at Chelsea?
By Rowanne Westhenry , Featured Columnist Aug 26, 2014

Romelu Lukaku made last season’s loan move to Everton permanent this summer in a deal worth £28 million, per BBC Sport. Having been at Chelsea since 2011, the big Belgian decided to move on after criticising the lack of opportunities he received at Stamford Bridge, revealing these thoughts to Steve Millar at the Daily Star.

The timing of this deal seemed strange; after all, this was supposed to be his year.

With Diego Costa leading the line, Lukaku was widely tipped to play as a second striker, getting a good run in a cup competition or two and providing cover for the Spaniard. Didier Drogba’s return should have been the icing on the cake, as Lukaku himself has cited the Ivorian as a big influence on his initial decision to join Chelsea in 2011, per ESPN FC:

Three or four years ago I had two jerseys of Didier Drogba, one to sleep in and one to wear in the street when I was playing with my friends. ... I always wore the same boots as Didier. … I'd watch Chelsea train on Chelsea TV. No-one else would do that. People called me crazy, my mum called me crazy.

[Drogba's] like my big brother, I tell him that. I say to him every day that he has to stay. He has to stay for me. If I can play for two more years he can prepare me for the big job. I know he wants to stay.

However, when it came down to it, Lukaku saw his former idol as a threat to his place in the starting XI rather than a potential mentor.

His frustration at the lack of playing time at Chelsea was understandable to a degree. The decision to send him on loan to Everton last year left the Blues reliant on a strikeforce of Samuel Eto’o, Fernando Torres and Demba Ba, with Lukaku outscoring each of them in the league, per Squawka. However, The Daily Mail's Joe Ridge revealed in December that Lukaku had requested the loan after missing the decisive penalty in the UEFA Super Cup, raising concerns about his attitude to the game.

Jose Mourinho confirmed that Lukaku’s mentality had played a big part in his departure, speaking to Martin Lipton at The Mirror:

The thinking was, first of all, the fact that Romelu was always very clear with us that in his mentality and his approach he was not highly motivated to come to a competitive situation at Chelsea. He wanted to play for Chelsea but clearly only as the first choice striker - and at a club of our dimension it’s very difficult to promise a player that status. That reduced, immediately, his desire to come to us.

It would be easy to lay the blame for the spat squarely with Mourinho, but Martin Lipton at The Mirror revealed that both Andre Villas-Boas and Roberto Di Matteo harboured doubts about the striker’s work-rate.

Essentially, it appears that Lukaku was unable to match his dream to the reality of life at one of Europe’s elite clubs. While the likes of Cesar Azpilicueta have worked hard in training to prove themselves to the manager, Lukaku seemed to believe that he deserved that coveted first-choice striker role without challenge.

Mourinho is the last manager who will favour hype over hard work, and his ruthlessness in selling fan favourites Juan Mata and David Luiz proved as much. The fact that Lukaku was unable to see that — and adjust his expectations and work ethic accordingly — is why his Chelsea dream ended so acrimoniously.
Pretty much this.
 

Wouterinho

New member
The part about the workrate is absolutely BS, I don't know many players who are more motivated than Lukaku.
He's a classic example of a perfect professional, working over-hours, being the last to leave the training pitch,...
There's an interview with him where he says the coach often has to take him off because he doens't want to stop and then he goes to the gym and leaves there last as well... The problem is that he needs to play and ofcourse Chelsea can't guarantee him anything but signing Drogba wasn't smart imo, the problem is that Mourinho isn't the kind of coach that gives young players a decent chance.
 
I watched him closely this season in PL. So far, I can only describe him as: God damn black Godzilla!!!

This guy carries big guys in duets like Zouma & Terry and Škrtel & Sakho on his back the entire game and whistles while they fight for oxygen and try to put their hanging tongues back in their mouths! I could not believe my eyes how strong this player is...

Nobody can:
1. outjump him
2. outmuscle him
3. stop him (in his "tank/steamroller" mode)
4. take the ball away from him (when he enclose it)
5. bring/wear/put him down, subdue him, overpower him

He does everything great: makes space, leads counterattacks, shoots, jumps, runs, passess... he score 5 times in 9 matches this season... and the best I saved for the end: he's 22 (in letters: twenty two).

We need some muscle in our team, I wish we buy him. Imagine, for example, Pepe's and Sergio Ramos's frustration, brewsers, pain and energy loss after muscleing with this monster for 90 minutes...
 

DonAK

President of FC Barcelona
I can also imagine my frustration when his pathetic heavy first touch ruins most of the moves....
 

KingMessi

SiempreBlaugrana
Lukaku? Here? What in the...

What-Excuse-me-Say-what-GIF.gif


People here complain about Suarez's first touch. Imagine the chaos on barcaforum if Lukaku were to play for us.
 

Home of Barca Fans

Top