Would you take him for £40m ?
posted on 3/7/17
comment by John Double Doe (U21516)
posted 1 minute ago
But Lukaku is being quote at £100m and would mean less game time for Rashford and martial
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a terrible excuse not to sign a player. We shouldn't sign X because he's better than Y, who we already have.
posted on 3/7/17
Don't get me wrong, id take Lukaku all day long. But I don't think we Will. I'd therefore get a good striker in whilst the youngsters learn the trade.
71 in 148 in england for Lukaku.
posted on 3/7/17
I am not saying we should sign Lukaku. I just used him as an example of a striker who plays for a team that are not as prolific as scoring as Arsenal.
A goal scoring ratio of 1 every 2.3for the major striker of a free scoring team like Arsenal is nothing to write home about.
posted on 3/7/17
Just out of.interest, what striker would you like us to sign?
posted on 3/7/17
Again with the less game time for martial and rashford
If you are going to shell out 40 mill for a striker you arnt considering the impact on the players you already have.
posted on 3/7/17
You are if the alternative is a £70m striker who has to start
posted on 3/7/17
Oh
posted on 3/7/17
Fack dat
posted on 3/7/17
Would be facking brilliant if you did. Please take Ramsey too
posted on 3/7/17
If we're gonna get a squad player striker we'd be better off getting Chicharito back for 13 million.