Milner / Sterling, so what's the difference?

[CC1]

You'd think Mr Milner though would have enough respect for the trophies he won at City to avoid all discussions about the size of the club. I also read somewhere that he made some comments about getting goosebumps when he turned up at Anfield with City. Hmmm ... it's one thing trying to ingratiate yourself with your new supporters, but personally I think his comments are sounding crass, and the more he repeats that everyone at City loved him and how they really wanted to keep him, the more he sounds like a wanker.

Agree totally. I thought he had a tad more intelligence. Should have had more respect for what he achieved with us. Definitely scratched off my list of past City players I like & remember with any affection

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

If we're being honest here, the difference is that Milner honoured the terms of his contract. He stayed at the club for 5 years, which was the entire length of the contract he signed in summer 2010 when he joined the club. Sterling, on the other hand, still had 2 years left on the contract he signed, and decided he was ready to leave, and didn't want to honour the remainder of the contract. That, in a nutshell, is the difference.

Now, there are pro's and cons to each approach. Milner gave 100%, didn't rock the boat, did exactly what he had been signed to do. However, Milner's approach meant City got absolutely nothing for him when he left the club, not one penny.

Sterling, on the other hand, gave 100% up until his mind was made up to leave, then his performances dropped off, and he started making waves to try and engineer an exit from the club. However, Sterling's approach means Liverpool are able to sell their asset for, with add ons, almost £50m. If he'd taken the Milner approach he'd have spent a further 2 years at Liverpool, however he'd then have been out of contract and free to move wherever he wanted. Yes, unlike in Milner's scenario, Liverpool would still have been due some compensation (due to Sterling's age) but it would have been a million miles away from the fee they've managed to negotiate now.

So, which approach is the "right one" to take? The media, and many fans, have decided it's the Milner approach. However I suspect the people running both City and Liverpool, when all's said and done, would prefer the Sterling approach, and the associated revenue.

Good post. There is no sensationalist media drama in that though. Personally I think its a non-story, as a great man once said - Dees ees football

 

[Matty]

To be fair if you read the article he didn't phrase it like that.


http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...manchester-city-liverpool-bigger-club-9651401

Former Manchester City man James Milner insists he is now with a bigger club at Liverpool.

The midfielder left the Etihad at the end of his contract this month to join Liverpool after winning two Premier League titles and FA Cup and a Capital One Cup in his time with the Blues.

He says he made the switch to ensure maximum playing time - but his parting shot about the Blues’ status is set to get under the skin of City fans.

And the fact that his comments come in a week when a plethora of former Anfield stars have lined up to have a pop at City over the Raheem Sterling saga , will exacerbate that feeling.

Milner said: “It’s a huge club and Man City, maybe over the course of history, isn’t as quite as big as Liverpool.

“At this moment in time City are doing very well and expected to win trophies. The set-up is all there. I had a lot of conversations with the hierarchy at City and they never said a bad word about me.

“It was just their opinions on where I fitted in.”

Milner was disgruntled about the amount of playing time handed to him by City manager Manuel Pellegrini - particularly in big games.

“They saw me as a big part of the club,” he said.



As for the difference Milner's ending his career, Sterling is starting his.

Having read that you can't really argue with what Milner has said. In fact he's probably doing Liverpool a bit of a disservice by saying that "maybe over the course of history, (City) isn’t as quite as big as Liverpool". Not sure there's much of a maybe about it. Their trophy haul is certainly far bigger than ours, as is their worldwide fanbase. Yes, City were successful earlier than Liverpool were, winning the league and the FA Cup before Liverpool won their first ones, but from the 1970's onwards Liverpool started to dominate World football, not just English.

He's a Liverpool player now, not a City one, we have to expect him to say some nice things about them, it's their fans he needs to win over.

 

[masterwig]

One will be looking at trophies in a museum cabinet. The other will be lifting them himself.

 

[schfc6]

Milner is obviously as thick off the field as he was on it. Am I seriously reading he didn't get his chance in the BIG games? He was pretty much first name on the team sheet for BIG games for both Mancini & Pellegrini. Or are Derbies, CL must wins, Chelsea games not big games?

 

[Tim of the Oak]

If we're being honest here, the difference is that Milner honoured the terms of his contract. He stayed at the club for 5 years, which was the entire length of the contract he signed in summer 2010 when he joined the club. Sterling, on the other hand, still had 2 years left on the contract he signed, and decided he was ready to leave, and didn't want to honour the remainder of the contract. That, in a nutshell, is the difference.

Now, there are pro's and cons to each approach. Milner gave 100%, didn't rock the boat, did exactly what he had been signed to do. However, Milner's approach meant City got absolutely nothing for him when he left the club, not one penny.

Sterling, on the other hand, gave 100% up until his mind was made up to leave, then his performances dropped off, and he started making waves to try and engineer an exit from the club. However, Sterling's approach means Liverpool are able to sell their asset for, with add ons, almost £50m. If he'd taken the Milner approach he'd have spent a further 2 years at Liverpool, however he'd then have been out of contract and free to move wherever he wanted. Yes, unlike in Milner's scenario, Liverpool would still have been due some compensation (due to Sterling's age) but it would have been a million miles away from the fee they've managed to negotiate now.

So, which approach is the "right one" to take? The media, and many fans, have decided it's the Milner approach. However I suspect the people running both City and Liverpool, when all's said and done, would prefer the Sterling approach, and the associated revenue.

You keep using the word "honour" Matty and fair enough in this context.

The key point IMHO is that both players set out to maximise their earnings potential. Sterling's approach has also been designed to see him win more trophies by moving.

Secondly, I hope we stop singing "there's only one greedy bastard" to Sturridge. After all, there's quite a few of them about and they've succedded in maximising their income!

 

[Henkeman]

He's hardly going to say City are a bigger club than Liverpool when he's just signed for them. He's been quite careful in what he's said, I don't really see the problem.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

He's hardly going to say City are a bigger club than Liverpool when he's just signed for them. He's been quite careful in what he's said, I don't really see the problem.

He could have said something along the lines of "I had a fantastic 5 years at City. Liverpool are a great club with a great history and a manager I admire. It was a no-brainer to come here when I decided I wanted a new challenge."

 

[Tim of the Oak]

He could have said something along the lines of "I had a fantastic 5 years at City. Liverpool are a great club with a great history and a manager I admire. It was a no-brainer to come here when I decided I wanted a new challenge."

Spot on PB

 

[BillyShears]

He could have said something along the lines of "I had a fantastic 5 years at City. Liverpool are a great club with a great history and a manager I admire. It was a no-brainer to come here when I decided I wanted a new challenge."

What's making it worse for Milner is that he's in full on PR mode for Liverpool whilst the Sterling hysteria is at it's peak. Personally I think he should've said as little as possible about City. The fact he's still bleating about playing time, what position he played in, all that kind of stuff which lets face it has been said a million times, even after he's left the club - it just reinforces what I think of him.