Chelsea Transfer News: Romelu Lukaku Joins Fulham on Loan
Lukaku had previously indicated (via The Daily Mail) that he would like to leave Stamford Bridge should he not receive adequate minutes on the pitch this season.
The arrival of Eden Hazard and the probable arrival of Oscar have all but ensured that he won't be starting this season—meaning that a loan or permanent move somewhere was imminent.
Fulham then, after stating their interest to sign the young striker on loan, via The Daily Mail, became an ideal landing destination for Lukaku, who has reportedly agreed upon a one-year deal with the club.
"Fulham have swooped for Chelsea's $18 million striker Romelu Lukaku on a seaon-long loan.
The Belgian, 19, made just one league start last season."
Whilst obviously not ideal, a loan deal to Fulham would seemingly be the best available option for Chelsea who, no doubt, still want to keep their young starlet.
Lukaku has the potential to become one of the top strikers in the English Premier League and the Blues would love him to be making his name at Stamford Bridge. They just can't find any room for him in their squad at the present time.
Loaning him out to a club like Fulham—who are unlikely to attract much long-term interest from Lukaku and are most likely unable to pay the $20 million required to sign him permanently—is therefore a logical move by Chelsea.
The loan move should also protect them from seeing their striker go off to the Italian or Spanish leagues on a permanent deal.
Chelsea are known for not playing their youth players and, whilst you can't argue too much with the policy—they did, after all, win the UEFA Champions League—they will lose good, quality players as a result of it.
I think they got lucky getting Romelu Lukaku on a loan deal—a win-win for both Chelsea and Fulham. Next time, they might not be so fortunate.
Was Chelsea wise to loan Romelu Lukaku to Fulham this season?
Comment below or hit me up on Twitter: Follow @dantalintyre
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?