He didn’t want to go to a lesser club - so no they wouldn’t
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Raheem Sterling | Joins Chelsea for £50m
- Thread starter Blue Smarties
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
So - they refuse to let him go. He plays half-heartedly for the season then walks for free. What would we gain by holding on to a want-away player?
Business decision - a sad one but the right one
Isn’t it £10m more than Liverpool got for Mane, who is a lot better player.
I’ve a lot of time for Sterling, but with his wages, status in the squad and contract situation?l, it seems good business to me. Jesus is the better player for me.
£90m for two players in the final year of their contract is great business.
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
we're selling because a) he doesn't want to be here and b) he has dropped down the pecking order and c) we can get a wedge of money in now as opposed to SFA this time next yearOn selling fees, for the most part these past ten years or so, I'd say that's certainly an area to improve upon.
Especially if most reason selling a player like Sterling, to a rival, for £45m as it merely helps the books.
Players like Sergio, Yaya, Silva etc we could easily have sold for vast amounts and gained untold profits but I have always maintained, yes even me apparently, that we've been able to hold onto those players, be successful, win trophies, get "our money's worth" and then let them leave of their own accord. Unlike a Liverpool.It’s not a realm a problem we have - most of our good/great players stay for over 7 years & we’ve had fantastic value for money. Others we’ve made a profit on such as Torres. We also have an important reputation for treating our players well & the respect is mutual - they then get to leave when they feel their time is up but we still make a profit on them. Gabby & Raz have given us everything but aren’t first choice any more - so we get a decent fee & they get to go to a lesser club (yes - Chelsea & Arsenal ARE lesser clubs) & they will play every week.
It’s a balance - business v player trust.
This has the added benefit of attracting the best players because they know they will be treated with respect & not as commodities
No problem with that, I've applauded it. Yes, even me apparently.
But a player entering their prime years, to a club that denied us a Champions League title not two years ago, is a little different than a 37 year old Fernandinho allowed to go back home.
I don't see why it's seen as two extremes. £45m or he leaves for free.
Sure let him go for a fiver then, that's better than nothing.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
"...merely helps the books"? I hope I never go into business with you mate.On selling fees, for the most part these past ten years or so, I'd say that's certainly an area to improve upon.
Especially if most reason selling a player like Sterling, to a rival, for £45m as it merely helps the books.
"the books" are what allow us to show a profit, bring in additional cash, refresh the squad and satisfy FFP.
LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
He wants to leave now. Unlike the players you mentioned, who wanted to stayPlayers like Sergio, Yaya, Silva etc we could easily have sold for vast amounts and gained untold profits but I have always maintained, yes even me apparently, that we've been able to hold onto those players, be successful, win trophies, get "our money's worth" and then let them leave of their own accord. Unlike a Liverpool.
No problem with that, I've applauded it. Yes, even me apparently.
But a player entering their prime years, to a club that denied us a Champions League title not two years ago, is a little different than a 37 year old Fernandinho allowed to go back home.
I don't see why it's seen as two extremes. £45m or he leaves for free.
Sure let him go for a fiver then, that's better than nothing.
Players like Sergio, Yaya, Silva etc we could easily have sold for vast amounts and gained untold profits but I have always maintained, yes even me apparently, that we've been able to hold onto those players, be successful, win trophies, get "our money's worth" and then let them leave of their own accord. Unlike a Liverpool.
No problem with that, I've applauded it. Yes, even me apparently.
But a player entering their prime years, to a club that denied us a Champions League title not two years ago, is a little different than a 37 year old Fernandinho allowed to go back home.
I don't see why it's seen as two extremes. £45m or he leaves for free.
Sure let him go for a fiver then, that's better than nothing.
Because Sterling doesn’t want to be at City. City are far too good a side to guarantee him any sort of playing time.
Many many of our fans don’t think he’s good enough to be at City.
He’s been brilliant in the main, but did have a year or so looking like a Sunday league player.
His wages off the books and £45m in the bank, you never know, we might win the net spend and good wage structure trophy of the mighty Liverpool.
Think of it this way, We’ve basically swapped Haaland for Sterling in terms of wages and fee..
As I believe the player is worth more, selling for less than that just to record the sale wouldn't line up with that reasoning would it?"...merely helps the books"? I hope I never go into business with you mate.
"the books" are what allow us to show a profit, bring in additional cash, refresh the squad and satisfy FFP.
If I'm selling my car at £5k and someone offers me a grand and I say "Deal, sure I can show everyone I got a thousand pounds"
christened at st marks
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 5,058
Sensed this 18mths ago, he has never shown emotion, or feeling of love for the club, is the reason why I'll be glad to see the back of him.Business common sense aside, he's been nowhere near good enough to justify a starting place in our team for at least 18 months.
He has stalled talks and made starting every week, the foundation of his conditions for signing.
The real question is, was starting every week a convenient ruse, and why did he not bring his best form to to ensure an even stronger bargaining position?
My own view is that he always intended to run his deal down and just fancied a change of scene, has has been found out by better players and a manager who was always just waiting for him to prove him wrong.
I'm be sorry to see Gabby and Ake go and hope they do well if they do go.
Lovebitesandeveryfing
Well-Known Member
He wants to leave now. Unlike the players you mentioned, who wanted to stay
What I read — may have no substance to it, the papers are a rumour mill, and we read the rumours so they'll carry on doing it — was that Raheem wanted parity with KDB in terms of weekly wages. If that is so, well, I like and rate Raheem but no. Really — just no.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.