Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
TheStig

Ademola Lookman

By TheStig, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Popular Post
Ashley

Ashley

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
18 hours ago, TheStig said:

Lookman was not good enough for Leicester City...... does well with Atalanta and slams a brilliant hat-trick in the Europa League final. Was it Rodgers or Rudkin that didn´t want to sign him on a permanent deal? We never cease to surprise.:blink:

More like we didn't have the money to buy him... 

 

Let's not get stuff twisted.

  • Like 7
Tom12345

Tom12345

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

Could've taken or left him when he came to the end of his loan spell. I think in hindsight you'd absolutely have gone for him, especially when you saw what we did in the year or so following it. I don't think many really expected this upturn though.

That is not quite true. Many saw him as a good player with the expected upturn. Even Rodgers rated him. He could play on both the left and right. This was well discussed at the time by many. But in the end, it was clearly the club’s FFP situation that prevented the club from making such a great investment. 13 goals+assists. 12m. Even his immediate resale value was greater than 12m at the time.

Tom12345

Tom12345

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

Jesus he's going to be another Kramarić people starting a thread every time he does some thing over the next 5-10 years.

 

It’s well documented why we didn't sign him, it's been done to death.

Yes well documented but if you imply that we didn’t sign him because he was not rated by Rodgers or the fans, that is not quite true. It is well documented that fans wanted him. The club for whatever reason decided to not splash the cash on him for FFP reasons (12m was a bargain even based on the circumstances at the time). They then splashed out more cash on other players later anyway. Simply poor decision. Rudkin maybe.

  • Like 1
coolhandfox

coolhandfox

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Tom12345 said:

Yes well documented but if you imply that we didn’t sign him because he was not rated by Rodgers or the fans, that is not quite true. It is well documented that fans wanted him. The club for whatever reason decided to not splash the cash on him for FFP reasons (12m was a bargain even based on the circumstances at the time). They then splashed out more cash on other players later anyway. Simply poor decision. Rudkin maybe.

Don't think I imply anything about the the decision to sign him or not.

Sampson

Sampson

Posted
Posted

Maddison and Barnes still scored plenty of goals. 
 

We went down because our defence was atrocious and Rodgers bizarrely continued to play a statue in goal.

 

i dont think Lookman would’ve made much of a difference 

The Blur

The Blur

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Tom12345 said:

Yes well documented but if you imply that we didn’t sign him because he was not rated by Rodgers or the fans, that is not quite true. It is well documented that fans wanted him. The club for whatever reason decided to not splash the cash on him for FFP reasons (12m was a bargain even based on the circumstances at the time). They then splashed out more cash on other players later anyway. Simply poor decision. Rudkin maybe.

 

We only splurged out in January as a desperate roll of dice to stay up.    Had we been comfortably in mid table,  I don't think we would have spent the same.

The Blur

The Blur

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, fazzyfox said:

His situation should be the kind of evidence we put up in the ffp case, to prove that once we knew we were in the s**t we slammed the brakes on. There was a player for a reasonable fee who you knew wouldn't be a gamble, we'd seem he could be effective for us and fit in yet we reluctantly felt we couldn't go through with it. Unlike Forest who signed 30 something players then pointed to their problem being the sale of Johnson being intentionally held off for a bigger profit.

 

But we then went and bought three players in January transfer window?

  • Like 1
fazzyfox

fazzyfox

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, The Blur said:

 

But we then went and bought three players in January transfer window?

We did and that will go against us but that was after we sold Fofana which improved but not resolved the situation whilst buying Faes as a replacement. At the time that Lookman was available we hadn’t sold Fofana. Things may have been different if Wes had gone at the start of the window.
No it’s true we didn’t stop spending completely, the January transfers were a half hearted attempt to try something to change our fortunes but none had PL pedigree and it was still less than we might otherwise have spent if we were still in reckless mode and fully in recognition of our league status plight. 

  • Like 1
honeybradger

honeybradger

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Sampson said:

Maddison and Barnes still scored plenty of goals. 
 

We went down because our defence was atrocious and Rodgers bizarrely continued to play a statue in goal.

 

i dont think Lookman would’ve made much of a difference 

He's much better at holding onto the ball than Barnes and doesnt throw himself to the ground at the slightest pressure from the opposition like Maddison. The ability to keep a hold of the ball high up the pitch is a big part of being defensively solid in a possession system. With Lookman instead of Barnes I'm certain that we would have conceded less last year.

  • Like 1
  • 6 months later...
Dan

Dan

Posted
Posted

It's a huge fumble isn't it. Said it before I was very on the fence so I can't sit here and absolutely blast us for it, but then I do look at some of the equivalent money we've wasted and it's pretty mad we never went for it. He's a comfortable £50mil+ player now.

Sly

Sly

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

It's a huge fumble isn't it. Said it before I was very on the fence so I can't sit here and absolutely blast us for it, but then I do look at some of the equivalent money we've wasted and it's pretty mad we never went for it. He's a comfortable £50mil+ player now.

The thing is, when we had him, you could tell he’d got potential. We wanted to see him

used more. 
 

He’s been great for Atlanta. However he’s been playing as a centre forward. We’d have never have played him there.

  • Like 3
funkyrobot

funkyrobot

Posted
Posted

We didn’t sign him because we used the money earlier in the season after his loan had been agreed to sign Vestergaard which wasn’t originally planned. Ironically Rodgers  then fell out with the Dane, barely played him and ultimately made him train on his own. 

  • Sad 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...