Oh yeah, I should point out that while I seem quite down on them as owners they have taken us out of the dark ages in terms of realising revenue potential. On that side of things they have done a marvellous job. It is all too easy to forget the kind of state we were in when they took over. They will leave us in a far far better state than when they took over. They have taken a failed business and completely turned it around since they took over. It is now at a point though, did you turn that business around to flip and sell making a fortune or do you intend to take it on further and make it a success on the pitch. I don't think they have any real interest in the latter.
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 - Done - See main forum
- Thread starter Kippax.
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Oh yeah, I should point out that while I seem quite down on them as owners they have taken us out of the dark ages in terms of realising revenue potential. On that side of things they have done a marvellous job. It is all too easy to forget the kind of state we were in when they took over. They will leave us in a far far better state than when they took over. They have taken a failed business and completely turned it around since they took over. It is now at a point though, did you turn that business around to flip and sell making a fortune or do you intend to take it on further and make it a success on the pitch. I don't think they have any real interest in the latter.
My point was that you contradicted yourself.
It's not your money so that's irrelevant.
Would Sterling improve us more than Walcott? Most definitely yes.
By your logic, we need neither though. Navas has pace and plays out wide. The point you're missing is that Sterling offers something different to Navas and Walcott. He has the ability to go past players, in tight spaces, from a standing start. When facing parked buses, as we often do, this is far more valuable than someone who can simply cover lots of ground quickly.
Ah-ha. We sing from the same hymn sheet. I just don't understand how people who watch football (or at least claim to) can so basically miscomprehend a footballer's talents and abilities. It's like they see a small black man and immediately think, "SWP" or "Aaron Lennon". I'm not for one moment suggesting any kind of racism but such slovenly thinking doesn't betoken a very lively, enquiring mind.
porkchopsaplenty
Well-Known Member
My point was that you contradicted yourself.
It's not your money so that's irrelevant.
Would Sterling improve us more than Walcott? Most definitely yes.
By your logic, we need neither though. Navas has pace and plays out wide. The point you're missing is that Sterling offers something different to Navas and Walcott. He has the ability to go past players, in tight spaces, from a standing start. When facing parked buses, as we often do, this is far more valuable than someone who can simply cover lots of ground quickly.
I agree with the fact Sterling has better ability to go past players than those two u mentioned- but he has alot to prove he has had one good season
YOU clearly have not paid attention to what i am saying- If you genuinley beleive Sterling IS Better than Isco & Reus (who have the qualities you mentioned sterling has) fair enough, i respect your opinion as you clearly have some good knowledge of the game.
However to be frank & no dis- respect comparing Sterling to two World class players like those 2 is almost laughable.
For me the Jury is out with Sterling 20M yes but 40M too big a gamble m8.
Isco and Reus would both definitely improve us, so I'd have no problem with us signing either of those. However, they don't have the benefit of being home grown. So that's two plus points for Sterling and only one for the other two.I agree with the fact Sterling has better ability to go past players than those two u mentioned- but he has alot to prove he has had one good season
YOU clearly have not paid attention to what i am saying- If you genuinley beleive Sterling IS Better than Isco & Reus (who have the qualities you mentioned sterling has) fair enough, i respect your opinion as you clearly have some good knowledge of the game.
However to be frank & no dis- respect comparing Sterling to two World class players like those 2 is almost laughable.
For me the Jury is out with Sterling 20M yes but 40M too big a gamble m8.
As for the money, as long as the chairman is happy with the fee, then we fans should not be complaining.
For me the Jury is out with Sterling 20M yes but 40M too big a gamble m8.
But it's not your money.
Isco and Reus would both definitely improve us, so I'd have no problem with us signing either of those. However, they don't have the benefit of being home grown. So that's two plus points for Sterling and only one for the other two.
As for the money, as long as the chairman is happy with the fee, then we fans should not be complaining.
Wanna go steady?
supercity88
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 13,843
There are plenty of English players out there of varying levels of talent.
What people seem to assume, wrongly, is that it will be any easier to sign any other English player and that there will be any better value for money. Walcott has never shown consistency and is a lot older than Sterling. Though Sterling is pricey his value could increase over time with good performances. That's not the case with many alternative English options. The one thing we have with Sterling that we don't have with other English options is a clear desire from the player to join us. Most would be reluctant to because they would doubt whether they'd get consistent playing time. In my opinion Walcott would feature sporadically, Sterling would often start so he's the better player to go for regardless of whether he's over priced.
We'd probably have to pay £20m for near enough any English player so for another £20m-£30m we might as well get one that could potentially improve our side hugely.
What people seem to assume, wrongly, is that it will be any easier to sign any other English player and that there will be any better value for money. Walcott has never shown consistency and is a lot older than Sterling. Though Sterling is pricey his value could increase over time with good performances. That's not the case with many alternative English options. The one thing we have with Sterling that we don't have with other English options is a clear desire from the player to join us. Most would be reluctant to because they would doubt whether they'd get consistent playing time. In my opinion Walcott would feature sporadically, Sterling would often start so he's the better player to go for regardless of whether he's over priced.
We'd probably have to pay £20m for near enough any English player so for another £20m-£30m we might as well get one that could potentially improve our side hugely.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Here's a good way to look at it. Is sterling worth double what we payed for Adebayor?
porkchopsaplenty
Well-Known Member
Ah-ha. We sing from the same hymn sheet. I just don't understand how people who watch football (or at least claim to) can so basically miscomprehend a footballer's talents and abilities. It's like they see a small black man and immediately think, "SWP" or "Aaron Lennon". I'm not for one moment suggesting any kind of racism but such slovenly thinking doesn't betoken a very lively, enquiring mind.
Or maybe i am busy so do not have time to post a detailed critique of a players abilities :)
I was just making a quick example of an English wide player with pace.
Making sweeping statements about someones personality or life when you know nothing about them also shows a slovenly mind, maybe you should read a post carefully...
Mr Ed (The Stables)
Well-Known Member
The 20% sell on clause may well be the crux of the matter here, if Liverpool want £40m then someone is going to have to come up with the missing £8m QPR will be due.
Now if Sterling puts a transfer request in that will get rid of his loyality bonus which would be due otherwise.
I still can't believe that Liverpool won't do business, otherwise they will be left with an unhappy player who will be able to buy himself out of his contract in 12 months time for allegedly £1.7m.
Talk about stick or bust!!
Now if Sterling puts a transfer request in that will get rid of his loyality bonus which would be due otherwise.
I still can't believe that Liverpool won't do business, otherwise they will be left with an unhappy player who will be able to buy himself out of his contract in 12 months time for allegedly £1.7m.
Talk about stick or bust!!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.