Yeah it's good thinking, especially with the talent City have sitting on the bench. Of course they rarely happen but it would be good business sense to try.
Raheem Sterling | Signs for Man City for £49,000,000
- Thread starter Brophs
- Start date
- Status
Yeah it's good thinking, especially with the talent City have sitting on the bench. Of course they rarely happen but it would be good business sense to try.
If i was Liverpool Id be saying you can have Stirling for £40m... but you have to take Ballotelli as well
That should scare them into a straight £50m offer
City would be the right move for him. They are an attacking side that have a settled squad. There is also a big gap on the right side ahead of the likes of Navas and Nasri, in a system that tends to give attackers license to roam across the midfield.
Great wages, not far to move, guaranteed game time. I almost hate to say it but City is perfect for him.
Great wages, not far to move, guaranteed game time. I almost hate to say it but City is perfect for him.
I thought he wanted to move back to London?
Is it true that he's a United fan? He shouldn't sign for the bitters if that's true,
I think he would do very well for Jose at Chelsea so lets hope not
He'$ a £an of $ome£hing, that'$ for$ooth.
Of course he likes money. But why not make loads of money and join a better team too? It's a no-brainer, to be honest.
There's barely a legitimate reason to sign a new contract at Liverpool in his position. Even the "he wont get games elsewhere" is reaching, as he's an upgrade on a good few of City's wide players. And comparing him to Scott '£8 million, fill-the-quota' Sinclair (which has happened) is laughable.
He is better off at liverpool.
I dont think he has the mentality to make it at a big club.
I dont think he has the mentality to make it at a big club.
I can see him at City. They are crazy enough to splash £50m on him.
You clearly don't know about the Webster Rules. Your boy can buy out his contract at the end of this season. A tribunal will determine his value. And your paying him peanuts will not help your cause. What you would like to pay him if only he'd sign a fresh contract is immaterial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_ruling
Of course it won't come to that. It never does. You'll sell him in the next 6 weeks if you have any sense.
Will be a good signing for whoever gets him IMO.
The Webster Rule is a myth. Firstly there is, or at least was, a tacit agreement between clubs that they won't use it. FIFPro brought a case to the European Commission with regard to the agreement between the clubs of the European Club Association as they felt it had the hallmarks of a cartel. As far as I can tell since then all that has happened is they've become less formal about the agreement and have taken measures to protect themselves in contracts signed since that time.
Secondly since the Webster case the few cases it has thrown up (6 or 7 years ago, from memory) were decided on the basis not of their remaining wages, but the 'harm suffered' by the club i.e. the cost to replace that player. It has apparently now become a standard clause in contracts that if they unilaterally terminate their employment contracts then the 'harm suffered' by the club is considered to be the 'market value' of the player. So Sterling would, if the current rumours are true, be liable to pay something in the region of £40m to Liverpool.
There's a very simple reason this clause hasn't been utilised. If it were a simple way for players to break their contracts then it would have been. It would also spell the end of the transfer system as we know it (which probably won't last more than another decade or two anyway).
What do you think will replace the transfer system?
It may be so. A court case might cost £40 million or it might cost less. But Sterling can still buy himself out, one way or another. And I doubt Liverpool would like to risk it being the other, if there's q safe £30m on the table.
He currently plays for our biggest rivals. Other clubs were after him at QPR, it didn't stop him going there.
Liverpool need to be true to their word on this and not sell him this summer, he could well be worth more to them than the £40-£50 million they would get for him, who would they buy with it anyway? I can only see players like Behrahino, Redmond, Bolaise etc which will get them nowhere.
Nope keep him and tell City to feck off.
Nope keep him and tell City to feck off.
Destined to fall below his potential playing for Man City.
How so? Would be an upwards move from Liverpool for him, for the comparative quality of each side.
He would walk in to their first 11.
He'd be playing every week for a top four side challenging for trophies. City would be a good move for him.
I actually agree with @Offside - I am just not convinced by City's ability to develop a young player like Sterling into a world class star. Most of their best buys and biggest names have been already established players in their prime. On paper, City looks like the perfect destination for him, but I feel he would do better at United or Arsenal - clubs that have a record and reputation for developing young players.
Their record with youth is shite, granted, but the difference with Sterling is that he'd likely be good enough to be in their first team, or at the very least would be a regular player. It's not a case of them signing some 18-year old who's going to be in the reserves/out on loan for a few years. They're potentially paying that sort of money because he's going to be a regular player.
Not to mention that despite our reputation for it, our record with growing youth hasn't been particularly impressive in recent years. It's been a ridiculously long time since we developed a player from our academy who went on to be top class, and since the days of Rooney/Ronaldo, you could argue the only young player who we've bought at a fairly young age that then went on to be superb in recent years has been De Gea. Who was arguably going to be a top talent anyway.
Granted, we're probably still better for it than City overall, and Chelsea's youth record has been woeful, but I'm not really sure that any of the top sides in England, other than perhaps Arsenal (and even then, have they been that great in recent years?) are great for developing young talents.
If Sterling doesn't suddenly hit poor form, whichever club signs him is going to feature him heavily. From there, it'll probably be more about coaching/tactics etc.
@Cheesy Sterling is good, but he isnt the finished product yet by any means. He still has a fair bit of developing to do. Playing in the first team at City is one thing (he will face stiff competition for his place anyway), but that doesnt necessarily equate to developing as a player - although it certainly helps.
As for other clubs - I mentioned United and Arsenal as big clubs around the same level as City, with a better track record. I would rate virtually every other team in the prem above Chelsea and City as far as youth development goes, but obviously not many of them would be a step up for a player at Sterling's level.
I dunno. One other factor is that it looks like Pellegrini is getting another season in charge, and he will be under a lot of pressure there to win some trophies or get sacked. I am not entirely convinced that he is going to want to take any perceived risks next season with regard to fielding youngsters. We will see, but I just cant quite picture Sterling becoming a real star at City.
As for other clubs - I mentioned United and Arsenal as big clubs around the same level as City, with a better track record. I would rate virtually every other team in the prem above Chelsea and City as far as youth development goes, but obviously not many of them would be a step up for a player at Sterling's level.
I dunno. One other factor is that it looks like Pellegrini is getting another season in charge, and he will be under a lot of pressure there to win some trophies or get sacked. I am not entirely convinced that he is going to want to take any perceived risks next season with regard to fielding youngsters. We will see, but I just cant quite picture Sterling becoming a real star at City.
If there's even a remote chance Liverpool would sell him to United, that situation is at least worth investigating. He's already one of the best in his position in the league and he'll only get better.
It depends. If you turn down 100k a week? Different planet certainly but some players would. Why do you think no professional would? There's always some that will break the mold. So you never know. If it was me in his place? I would. It's a person by person thing. Not everyone is a ..De Gea
Sterling going to City is bad news. I really rate this guy would love to see him here.
Nah, I reckon Depay is just as good at half the price.
The reason I think he’s worth so much is because there is a big chance he won’t feck off to Barca/Madrid once he becomes world beater, and I believe he will become one soon. Most top attackers these days are from South America or southern Europe, and personally I don’t see any of next Messis Neymars or Suarezs picking us over Spain.
I also disagree about City not being good choice for him, he would probably be a starter as a winger. The pressure on him was huge this season, and he still did quite well. I don’t see it as a problem with “developing youth”, because he’s already an established good player.
I also disagree about City not being good choice for him, he would probably be a starter as a winger. The pressure on him was huge this season, and he still did quite well. I don’t see it as a problem with “developing youth”, because he’s already an established good player.
Do you really rate Depay? if you do and he is 'just as good' as Sterling then you also really rate sterling, regardless of the price. Depay still has to prove he can step up to the PL from the Eredivisie, Sterling had already beaten that hurdle when he was 19 (not that I don't rate Depay by the way).
I hope your right and I cant really comment because I haven't seen enough of Depay but from the few games I have seen and from the youtube clips Depay looks nowhere near Sterlings level. Yes I know youtube clips are not an accurate way to judge a player because they usually make a player look better than they are but even from youtube I struggle to see what all the fuss is about with Depay. Im sure he must be very good given the judgement of the manager and other pundits but I haven't seen it yet.
Sterling is not better. They are about the same level tbh. Sterling was better the season before, and Depay better this season gone.
Depay is also obviously a better goalscorer, where Sterling is a better dribbler.
He’s not the finished product, of course, and still has plenty of developing to do, but he’s very likely to be a regular fixture in their first team because he’s good enough to be. If he isn’t, then it’ll likely be a product of his own poor performances. As I say, I think the tactics/management of whoever’s in charge is a lot more likely to affect him there than City’s youth policy, which would be more detrimental to younger players who won’t get a lot of game time.
The ever cheerful Craig Burley with his view:
If anyone's stupid enough to pay £50m for Raheem Sterling then the games over for sure.
If anyone's stupid enough to pay £50m for Raheem Sterling then the games over for sure.
Okay not everyone but almost everyone. When you're at level you want to have the best career or the most money. Things like what club you support usually isn't high on the priority list for the majority of people
It's the natural conclusion of things when you welcome sugar daddy owners into football with open-arms - which the Premier League has more than any other league.
- Status