Would selling Lookman to Leipzig be a mistake?

Lookman is on a long contract and is not one of our epic fails on mega wages who need to be off the wage bill. Regardless of whether he wants to go or not, we must tell him he is staying and he must fight for his place or face two seasons going nowhere.

We must be prepared to take a stand against agents, players and other clubs conspiring over transfers to the detriment of Everton. I'm fed up seeing us get battered by the likes of Palace, Swansea, Watford and now RB Leipzig over transfers.

The extra £50 million or so that could take a new stadium from 55,000 to 60,000 capacity or from Ikea to Iconic has been spent on paying grossly inflated prices for a few players. This in part explains how other clubs are able to progress with their stadium redevelopments and still get good players in. We are still not even at the artist's impression stage. Even King's Dock got that far.

So no, keep him.

He s no world beater yet, but should get more time on the field from Silva than from SA.

Who is doing our negotiating? Smashie and Nicey, or maybe Walter and the Softees from the Beano? I cannot believe that Brands could be so naive, otherwise he wouldn't have lasted 3 months in his previous job. Now watch in awe as we 'reluctantly' accept £15 million for Lookman.

We are a complete laughing stock.

Wingers don't tend to play 10x 90-minute matches due to tiredness or the need to change things up, so he will get plenty of game time.

Not to mention the speed Walcott and Richarlison move they will get small injuries due to ill-timed tackles. Also like to see him as an option through the middle should we need to play on the counter (e.g. against City).

We need 2 players for every position.

Richarlson/Lookman
Tosun/DCL
Walcott/(???)

So clearly he would have a role to.play. He could also play in the middle or in the 'no10'.

His value will only increase, 3 years on his contract. Hopefully in January he'll ink an extension, or evwn now juat to nip the speculation in the bud.

What he will not provide is defensive cover, but fuck that. Get a good LB behind him and let him do what he does best.

I think he will be a very good player.

In a statement on their official website Watford said: "In pursuing its disciplinary claim, the club has known from the outset it forfeited any right to compensation as a consequence of not following a proposed arbitration process.”

The only thing that is clear is that Watford have no expectation of an official award of damages for them through that process. Perhaps they could have pursued compensation some other way and that is what has been dealt with through the Richarlison fee? Does anyone really know all the ins and outs before we accuse the club of being a laughing stock?

I don't know what half of those things are :) but sounds like he is packing his bags I would be very disappointed in this, I believe his strong will to knock on FS door and tell him to stick his shite team that I am off to Germany speaks volumes of the lad and his attitude, and to think Schneiderlin and Mirallas will still be here creaming off the club with their rancid attitudes is disturbing

I hope it does not come to pass a loan deal would be better option fingers crossed

He definitely won't be missed at all.

For me, Richarlison is a centre-forward and I imagine he will play more games there than out wide. If we start the season with Walcott and Richarlison out wide, then we will need a pacy forward to play with them. Tosun has no pace and gets outmuscled far to easy for my liking, and certainly seems incapable of playing a closing down game that Silva prefers.

If Silva intends to play a front three then the first choice front three (IMO) is Ricarlson, Walcott and Tosun. Maybe Mola isn't happy that he'd be behind those for a starting place.

Silva said he wants two outfield players for each position and three goalies. Do you question Mola's attitude if he's not happy at being the number two in his position? Or do you respect him for having faith in his own ability and wanting to be a "first pick"? Personally I don't believe he should be a "first pick". The lads got talent but Walcott and Ricarlson both offer more (IMO).

There has to be ten of the twenty (desired) outfield players who are prepared to accept that they're behind their counterpart and fight for their place to become number one choice.

If Mola is unwilling to do that then good riddance (IMO). We can't afford to have players who want or expect things they're not prepared to fight for. I know we have others on the books we want rid of but this post is purely about Mola.

I haven't got a clue about his attitude or outlook but if things are possibly like I suggest they "may" be then Silva has to decide whether he keeps him and makes him fight for his place or gets rid for a decent fee.

To me anyone (and again I'm not suggesting Mola IS like this) who isn't prepared to be part of a squad and accept their place in that squad and battle for their place in the starting eleven should be gone ASAP.

I agree to an extent. Seems to have an attitude like Lukaku but I think with strong management he could be turned around and improved.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's at Everton.

It does sound like it and maybe why he has been missing from the friendlies.
It will be such a shame as I think he will be a great player and with him and Richarlison on either side would frighten any defence. I just wish Marallas and Shneiderlin would do one, especially Shneids as once again he looked so disinterested the other night.

Part of the issues we have had at Everton recently has been the lack of desire/fight in players who feel they "deserve" to be in the starting 11... its been voiced a lot on TW all last year. This is just as important for the 2nd player in a position. They need to fight and want that place, and not accept "OK" as being the thing.

If Ademola thinks he deserves a place, he is mistaken. No one deserves a place (except Pickford, but that's just cos the other keepers aren't that great!! :-) ) They need to fight for it.

Absolutely agree. I don't actually rate him anywhere near as highly as some seem to. He is incredibly raw, lightweight, prone to giving the ball away, defensively useless, and not nearly as quick as has been suggested on here.

Lookman didn't play many games for Charlton before coming to us. 3 of our managers didn't think he was ready and regardless of what you think of those managers, they watched him in training and obviously he didn't stand out amongst a bunch of very mediocre players.

Even for Leipzig he had as many poor games as he did good. Yes, his stats were good but their league is less quick and physical. It suited Lookman like it will suit Klaassen. Lookman was dreadful every time he started for us. I didn't even think he was that great in the dead rubber Europa match. They were very poor and made him look okay.

I am being a little harsh because I really don't believe he is good enough. Nor do I think Dowell is good enough. The jury is still out on Davies and Kenny. Holgate is the best of the bunch IMO.

If Lookman stayed, he would get abuse in the same way Stones and Barkley did, and if he did ever finally become good enough, a bigger team would step in and buy him.

We're a dreadful team and need players who are ready to go now. Persevering with young players who are not yet good enough, will result in a lot of frustrating performances while we wait for them to develop – at that point they will piss off elsewhere.

Too many players past their best alongside too many players not yet at their best. Add into that mix players with attitudes like Schneiderlin's and you get absolute dross served up weekly.

However, in saying all that, I'm not in the doom and gloom camp yet. I think that Silva and Brands are completely aware and doing everything they can to fix this mess. I do think we will see 3 or 4 new faces this window and hopefully several will depart. The problem is that we're a tough sell to top players and you can't blame them for seeing us as a last resort. We are not glamorous, and offering huge wages to players only coming for the money equals lazy ass, "couldn't give a shit as I'll get paid anyway" performances.

It's going to take a monumental effort to get us back on track. But as always, I still believe that we'll find our way. Just don't expect a massive turnaround this season.

It is all well and good to admire his "spirit" and "drive"and "desire to play", but what is not to be admired is the idea that if he can't have his own way, he sulks, throws his toys out of the pram and refuses to meet the conditions of his contract.

What happens if he gets "benched" at RB Leipzig for any reason?

Does he then insist on being sent out on loan to a club in Italy, or Spain or does he demand a move somewhere else?

In my view, player "power" has gone a bit too far.

From what I know, he went there and enjoyed it: the club, fans, management, playing style and hey, moving to a new country as a young kid must also be exciting. Thus the lad is keen on a return. While at Everton he's on the bench, for a team that for 2 years has only played crap footy, and not much chance of Champions League football anytime soon.

Yeah, why oh why would he want to move?

Hope he stays, but understand why he wants to move.

Is he an experience player – in his prime – who wants to increase game time? If it's correct, that he wants to leave because he considers himself too good to not be utilised, week-in & week-out, as a first choice winger, then he is completely deluded.

Lookman has vast potential but nothing else at the moment. There's the door, make sure it doesn't bang your arse on the way out, if you're pressing for a move because you're not the first name on the team sheet every week. That's the problem with Everton, too many rotten apples, who don't comprehend the meaning of the word 'professional'.

You have just completely fabricated a story about Lookman and his “attitude”. The only thing he did was state that he did not want to go to the Championship and was able to line up a move to a top club in Germany. At that club, he did very well, played and scored regularly, and is now wanted by that club.

He had every right to refuse a move to the Championship. He knew that the Championship was below his level and would not help his career, it would only hurt him. He never refused to play, never sulked, never did any of the things you accused him of doing. What you did is lie about his character and attitude.

But then he may have just been injured. Interesting that we've seen no news though...

If Leipzig want him, I'd want to recoup most of Richarlison's fee, so 㿊m or so. Plan B might be to loan him for another 6 months to see if he develops further. I was actually more impressed than some at how well he did at RBL, given he moved to a foreign league at such a young age- doesn't usually work out. There are far more failures than there are Owen Hargreaves.

If they can't afford that, and he throws a sulk, then he can warm the bench and watch his career really stall. Unlike some other overpaid prima donnas in our squad, he is only on around 㿀k a week so we can easily afford to call his bluff if he behaves like a prat.

Er, why not? His career, and the days of footballers being bonded employees of their clubs disappeared thanks to Jimmy Hill.

As Ross Barkely and Davy Klaassen have already showed, the modern footballer holds the cards and decides when and where they move. I find Lookman being singled out for deciding where he wanted to go a nonsensical ignorance of reality.

I would always be open to suggestions and opinions from players but a managers decision should be final. Just because there is more player power these days, doesn't mean you have to accept it. If I wanted Lookman to go to Derby after I advised I want him to prove what he can do there, but he said no way, he would be in the reserves for the season, or he can go if 㿊m plus offer came in for him.

Ross Barkley turned down a 35m move to Chelsea only to move for 15m 6 months later, in an odious affair which stank to high heaven. Klaassen turned down Napoli in the same window as Lookman, in what Allardyce himself branded an incomprehensible decision from a footballing point of view.

Yet you choose to castigate Lookman in his decision to pick Leipzig - managed incidentally by a very good coach with a stellar reputation for bringing through young players - ahead of Derby. From a footballing point of view, what exactly is wrong with him picking the club with the greater appeal to him?

I find the rest of your post extraordinary in its vitriol, and frankly there is no rational reason I can think for it. He has provided some thrilling moments when given the chance and his performances at Leipzig clearly show evidence of a very talented player. Personally, I would pick him over Vlasic and Dowell as the leading creative young talent to nurture within this squad.

While I agree with you about Lookman, I don't in terms of footballers holding all the cards.

In extremis, you have the Mutu case where he was found personally liable for 㾻m compensation. I'm not sure he ever paid that sum, it would probably have bankrupted him, but there is such a thing as contract law.

In the case of Lookman, as I understand it, he has the right to decline being loaned or transferred to a club he does not wish to go to. Equally Everton have the right to refuse a loan or transfer if they are not satisified with the terms, regardless of what the player may want, and then hold the player to the contract he has signed.

Obviously one ideally does not want to reach an impasse with a player, but if it happens, it is not a one way street. We can block Lookman leaving. While we must treat him fairly in choosing to select him or not in the team, equally Lookman has an obligation to make an effort to try and play- just as any employer and employee must, except that the contractual length and value of football players' contracts adds more weight. For example, I can't think of too many employees who in losing an employment case, would be assessed as causing 㾻m of damages.

In the case of Barkley, he was, I think, deliberately running down his contract in order, I suspect, to enhance his wages and signing on fee- and probably his agent's commission. But this is a high risk strategy. Where is Barkley now? Pretty washed up from being touted as a mainstay for the national team while with us. How did Mutu get on even if he didn't end up paying all the money he owed? With a letdown of a career, never ending legal cases, and the expense that goes with that, plus I suspect the threat of bankruptcy over his head.

There is an interesting side discussion here about the fate of transfer fees in the future- there is an argument to say they will become legally invalid- but this post deals with the here and now.

His contract last season was with Everton. If the then manager (despised or not) said, I don't think you are ready for the first team, or you don't fit into my first team plans - but I have arranged a loan for you at Derby (who at the time were still pushing for possible automatic promotion to the Premier League), then that is what he, as an EMPLOYEE of the club, should have done.

If, at his age, I had taken that attitude to my manager, I know what the result would have been.

I know we live in a period of "Player Power", but it has to end somewhere, or there will be anarchy.

We all complain about Mirallas and Schneiderlin and their attitude to the club and to the club management.

What next, Pickford having a strop because he wants to play centre forward and Silva wants him to play in goal?

I reiterate my point - "player power" has gone too far and will ultimately do far more harm than good to the game.

Most talented employees have an eye on the next opportunity, especially if they feel they've been less than well-treated.

If he wants to go, let him go if the price is right. He's talented, he's promising, but for me, he hasn't done enough to be indispensable.

“Amit 97
While I agree with you about Lookman, I don't in terms of footballers holding all the cards.

In extremis, you have the Mutu case where he was found personally liable for 㾻m compensation. I'm not sure he ever paid that sum, it would probably have bankrupted him, but there is such a thing as contract law.”

1. Not sure the Mutu case is relevant. He was found to have committed an egregious breach (cocaine use?) which led him to being sacked. Chelsea had a clear case for termination and compensation.

2. No one is disputing the existence of contract law. But within such a framework, the question is who holds the cards. I think its very naive to think it is not Lookman, especially given his market value.

3. There are recent examples of players forcing through moves, or blocking a transfer, even though they are under contract, and why Lookman should not be able to achieve the same result is not clear from your post. Barkley cost Everton 20m by not agreeing to move - nothing in his or any players contract requires them to move as directed by their club, is there? Klaassen cost 6 months of wages and most famously 10 years ago Lescott sulked his way to a move to City, stinking out the gaff in a 1-6 home defeat.

4. This summer, Courtois holds the cards in his will-he or won't-he transfer, which could lead to Chelsea losing him for nothing or receiving a fee; seems the player holds the cards.

Lookman is a valuable asset. If he wants away, like Barkley and Klaassen, it will be at a time and to a club of his choosing. If we think that letting him rot in the reserves will lessen his resolve or indeed send out some signal that Everton will not be trifled with, then I think that is truly naive thinking. The club will want to cash in on him as soon as possible if they cannot keep him as he is a valuable asset. Like it or not, he holds the cards.

As a contracted employee he is not required to go and do anything or play for any club that Everton wants to send him to. This is why in every player transfer there are two separate stages. First a few between the clubs is agreed. Second, the player agrees to terms with the new club. The player is not obligated to accept being sold, same goes for a loan.

Lookman never refused to do his contractual duties for Everton. In fact he wanted to play for Everton. But when the manager came to him and said he will not be playing and that he wants to send him to the Championship, he in no way is obligated to just go along with it.

Every man has a right to do what is also in their best interest long term. He didn't break his contract. He had a better solution for his career and did the absolutely correct thing by sticking up for himself. He took a massive risk and bet on himself and he proved himself. He is now back at Everton and instead of not knowing what his worth is, which is what would have happened if he had gone down to the Championship, we and he knows that he can either be part of the first team here or at one of the top teams in Germany. That's not “player power”. That's simply an employee knowing his rights and not allowing their employer to potentially hurt their career.