Lukaku to West Brom...

[alexbishop]

Okay, just a bit weird that you offered your opinion on a different subject than that we were discussing.

"And what are you saying is the bigger gamble? Rod or loaning Lukaku?"

Rodallega, obviously, as that's where the club plans for the future and actually own the player. To loan a player like Lukaku is planning extremely short term (and as he offers very few indications of instant success, that's not a good mix), and with 31-year-old Petric and 27-year-old Rodallega, that's certainly not what we need. And we have no idea what kind of signing on fee and wages Hugo got so there's really no need to speculate.

Pretty sure we haven't moved off the subject of the value of a loan deal in this topic...

Look it's all speculation right now, Lukaku could get 20 goals this season for West Brom and move them above us or he could get 2 goals and be of no benefit to them whatsoever. Either way one of us will eat our words. I just figured since we don't seem to have the dollar for a decent striker right now Lukaku would have been a decent, financially viable option in the short term.

Pretty sure you did when you brought up Diarra, Murphy etc though.

Yeah sure. But my main problem isn't with Lukaku and the fact that he may or may not score a lot. It's that we wouldn't really benefit from the deal either way and would be better of by taking a punt on, say, a cheapish striker from abroad. I guess that's where we don't see eye to eye.

Ah I see. No I guess I was just trying to illustrate gambles made in the past that have paid off. But I agree sourcing cheaper strikers from abroad is a sensible approach but I personally don't think there's such thing as a cheap striker these days :s

[twang]

Okay, just a bit weird that you offered your opinion on a different subject than that we were discussing.

"And what are you saying is the bigger gamble? Rod or loaning Lukaku?"

Rodallega, obviously, as that's where the club plans for the future and actually own the player. To loan a player like Lukaku is planning extremely short term (and as he offers very few indications of instant success, that's not a good mix), and with 31-year-old Petric and 27-year-old Rodallega, that's certainly not what we need. And we have no idea what kind of signing on fee and wages Hugo got so there's really no need to speculate.

Pretty sure we haven't moved off the subject of the value of a loan deal in this topic...

Look it's all speculation right now, Lukaku could get 20 goals this season for West Brom and move them above us or he could get 2 goals and be of no benefit to them whatsoever. Either way one of us will eat our words. I just figured since we don't seem to have the dollar for a decent striker right now Lukaku would have been a decent, financially viable option in the short term.

Pretty sure you did when you brought up Diarra, Murphy etc though.

Yeah sure. But my main problem isn't with Lukaku and the fact that he may or may not score a lot. It's that we wouldn't really benefit from the deal either way and would be better of by taking a punt on, say, a cheapish striker from abroad. I guess that's where we don't see eye to eye.

Ah I see. No I guess I was just trying to illustrate gambles made in the past that have paid off. But I agree sourcing cheaper strikers from abroad is a sensible approach but I personally don't think there's such thing as a cheap striker these days :s

Fair enough!

[Berserker]

Well not a English one anyway

[HatterDon]

Are people seriously bothered that we 'missed out' on this one?

IMHO we're well past having to loan and develop big clubs talent. Good move for WBA though, who I have down as an obvious relegation candidate.

Yes, I am. We're still very short of strikers, and if Dempsey goes ... .

[Mr Fulham]

Are people seriously bothered that we 'missed out' on this one?

IMHO we're well past having to loan and develop big clubs talent. Good move for WBA though, who I have down as an obvious relegation candidate.

Yes, I am. We're still very short of strikers, and if Dempsey goes ... .

....we'll need three offensive players. And we may have to recruit them within a few days or even hours. Expect a few Orlando Sás or David Elms.

[mangoputney]

Jol must be like marmite... A lot seem incapable to take to him

Loan or not, thought this was a banker, disappointed... Possible season changer for west brom

[In the Enclosure]

My guess would be that his agent wanted a big fee to arrange the deal and Fulham wouldn't pay it - think that is normally the clubs stance

[Burt]

I would have liked to have seen this happen... We havent got goalscoring depth and can't afford top notch players (fees or wages) and this would have been a good, albeit short-term, solution.

Good business for WBA.

[Lighthouse]

One week before the season starts, short on strikers, we have just one if Rodders isn't fully fit. International football midweek leaves the squad very weak should just one or two fail to make it back fit. As this window has gone on we have rid ourselves of players but have not replaced them other than with out of contract and free transfers. They may be great.

Hardly makes me confident that the game against Norwich is not one we will struggle in. Sadly I thought we were passed that. Should Petric twist an ankle. Well it leaves us bare.

[Patterson]

I don't think we're in a position to never bring in players on loan.  We have to look at it on a player-by-player basis.  I may be slightly biased being half-Belgian, but I would have loved to see him here.  Touted as "the next Drogba" and while I think that's almost fair, he's slightly different.  A target man who excels at poaching goals and banging around defenders...I can't think of a striker type we're missing more at the moment.

If we can sign someone on a permanent basis who fills those attributes, then great.  I'm just not sure there are many of those players we could get without dishing out some cash to get him.  I'm quite happy to keep getting free transfers and save some money up.

The two Dems are still here and as long as they are, I don't see the point in paying for another attacking player.  I'm still holding out (foolishly so perhaps) that Clint will be with us September 1st.

[Terry Angus]

Let's be honest, it would have been far easier for Chelsea to send Lakuka across the road to Fulham and keep tabs on his progress. There isn't any real benefit sending up to to the West Midlands. For some reason we were heavily linked, Jol wanted him on a years long loan then it all went a bit quiet with his agent coming out and confirming that he wasn't going to Fulham. If I had my own suspicions, I'd say we've got someone else on the boil.

EXACTLY. This is good news. It means we've something better in store than a player who 'might be worth £50m in a few years' but ain't nothing special atm (and it's atm we were gonna loan him, not in a few years)

Sagbo... Gignac... someone like that is on their way

[cebu]

There could be any number of reasons why Fulham didn't get him. Our last loan signing from Chelsea hardly got a look in, which probably didn't please Chelsea very much. Lukaku is probably nailed on to start every match with WBA though.

[tommy]

My issue with this deal is I didn't really want Fulham to loan him, but I didn't want anyone else to have him either.

[sipwell]

He has outstanding potential (hence the reason why Chelsea bought him) but I am not convinced he is fit for Premier League football. His great ability is that he is very strong but Prem defenders tend to be very strong as well... so he loses a lot of his uniqueness. I think it is best that Fulham did not get him on a loan, since he has a lot still to prove...