No one else finds it odd that City are the only ones showing concrete interest and bidding?
Figured it would be at least 3-4 clubs. Ourselves included.
Figured it would be at least 3-4 clubs. Ourselves included.
Raheem Sterling | Signs for Man City for £49,000,000
- Thread starter Brophs
- Start date
- Status
City have the greatest need for him and want him the most I imagine. Liverpool have no pressing need to sell right now so it's not like any deal will be concluded quickly. As such, I imagine any other interested clubs are happy to sit back and see how proceedings go with City before deciding on a course of action.
Not really, no. The only teams I really saw going for him were yourselves and City. I don't think your lot have any pressing need for him and £50m will be a fair whack of anyone's transfer budget. City seem intent on overhauling their squad whilst your lot will most likely only slightly tweak your squad.
So you think he's worth £40+ million? more fool you, they just don't want the club to pay that figure out for an extremly overrated player.
Sterling is the best young English player by some distance. He's a winger with the ability to beat a man with a direct style - precisely what City need. He's English - precisely what City need. I'd value him at most at £40m but if City have to pay £50m to get him I couldn't really care less, it's not my money and if the club can spare it then do it. It's not worth letting £10m get in the pay of a potentially world class player who would be perfect for our side.
We have no need for another player who can play across the front line given that we have a wealth of options in that position already, and even more so if the Firmano rumours turned out to be true.
Is Sterling worth £40million, much less £50million? Hell no. But City need English players to fill their homegrown players quota given that they just released both Richards and Milner. They are also backed with oil money. If I were Liverpool I would hold out.
And then watch Brentan Rodgers piss the transfer money down the drain with signings that doesn't match his style of play or position.
I reckon he would turn out to be a brilliant signing for you. I'd say he is close to being worth 30m now and don't think you'll end up paying anywhere near 50. He will probabaly end up signing for 38M-ish if I were to take a guess.. His last six months were very average and thats tainting peoples views somewhat.
I personally hope that Liverpool get too greedy and proce him out of a move to you lot and end up having to keep him.
I am not sure which is crazier, Sterling for £50m or Kane for £50m....both figures seems equally ludicrous to me.
£50 million is a ridiculous price for a 20 year old, no matter how much potential and talent he has. Players in their prime at about 23-24 years should be going for that price.
Also Liverpool seem so greedy. They value Sterling at £50 million, but were ready to offer him just £100,000 a week in wages. Surely a £50m player should be on more? Whatever it is, I think he'll go to City for 30m or probably even see out his contract if City don't want to pay what the scouse want.
Also Liverpool seem so greedy. They value Sterling at £50 million, but were ready to offer him just £100,000 a week in wages. Surely a £50m player should be on more? Whatever it is, I think he'll go to City for 30m or probably even see out his contract if City don't want to pay what the scouse want.
I think £50m for Sterling would be more crazy. It would be insane for Kane as well but at least he's a match winning goal scorer. Sterling can look world class at times but terrible and super inconsistent at other times.
English player tax is indeed ridiculous at times.
He will be excellent alongside Aguero and Silva. Needs to improve his finishing if he wants to be world class though. In a footballing sense I think that City are the best team for him to go to.
£35 million would be a steal. Hope Liverpool bleed them for every penny, £50 million would be great as that would take up a good proportion of their budget.
Offer rejected according to the Guardian.
They should walk away if true.
We're in a pretty good position here. If we can get £35m after QPR's cut, then I'll be happy enough.
City have no money worries if Platini is going to ease FFP. We should be hoping that Liverpool get as little as possible for the player.
Ease doesn't mean abolish though, they're will still be slightly restricted. The more money they spend on Sterling, the better. Liverpool aren't a threat anymore, and Rodgers will just waste the money anyway.
Imagine how much Tottenham are going to make us pay for Kane now 
£35.5million is excellent money for Sterling but if Lolerpool think they can get more, then fair play to them.
£35.5million is excellent money for Sterling but if Lolerpool think they can get more, then fair play to them.
Should be less given sterling is the bigger talent.Imagine how much Tottenham are going to make us pay for Kane now
£35.5million is excellent money for Sterling but if Lolerpool think they can get more, then fair play to them.
Kane has had a way better season and just scored 31 goals in his first real season in the Premier league, and he didn't even start games regularly until November. Both have different qualities and overall I agree that Sterling is the better talent, but you simply cannot ignore that Kane has reached a level this season that Sterling isn't near yet, and the age difference in only 1 year.
Sterling is one of the best young players in England. With him, you are paying for his potential rather than his current status in the game.
It's exactly like we did with Rooney all those years ago. 25 million back then for a 19 year old was considered madness.
I think he could do very well at City. He's going to fill a void in their squad which means he will play almost every week. However, he won't be burdened by being the main man at such a young age like he was at times with Liverpool last season.
It's exactly like we did with Rooney all those years ago. 25 million back then for a 19 year old was considered madness.
I think he could do very well at City. He's going to fill a void in their squad which means he will play almost every week. However, he won't be burdened by being the main man at such a young age like he was at times with Liverpool last season.
Some people didn't even want us to buy Ronaldo back. What matters, is what they do on the pitch. People that go on about 'the price'. You wouldn't probably be paying the money anyway. We could talk about Value, but that talk led to Hazard signing for Chelsea. Kane and Sterling are both young and English and you have a potential 10+ years there. It's not just what you buy now but in the future. Both players aren't about to go away and they're both at an age where they can be molded to be top players. The question is, do have we not learnt from missing out on Hazard? Signing for any other big club won't be good news for us. I don't really give a shit about what they would do for other clubs.
Sterling will be the better player IMO. Kane scored 21 goals if I'm not mistaken in the league. For me, the former is more valuable and I'd bid higher for him.
Citeh need their quota of British players.
Sterling is a better and much more proven then Kane. The latter could well end up being a one season wonder.
Unless he has some major injury issues Sterling should only get better from here. City are the winners here if they are able to sign him. They will be getting all of his best years
I expect City will let Liverpool sweat now for a bit, wont want to come off too desperate. I think other clubs are waiting in the wings to see what happens to the price.
Maybe if Kane was at another team he would be £40m, but the £10m Levy tax must be applied to any Tottenham sale when MUFC is involved.
We don't know the full details of what Liverpool have offered, and his agent has been quoted as saying if we offered several times more than that he still wouldn't have signed.
It's hardly greed - a potential selling club have the right to get the best price. I don't see why people cannot see that!
When you say he will go to City for 30m, you mean next season yes? After all we have already turned down 2 offers in excess of that.
Kane (at the price quoted), could possibly be one of the riskiest transfers that we can undertake, I have no idea if he is one season wonder (eg. Michu, Stephen Ireland) or if he can keep his goalscoring streak up. I have serious doubts if he will pick up where he left off last season.
Greed or not, your board is doing exactly what it should. Just a bit of shame for you lot that nothing had happened yet out of the supposed interest from Bayern, Real and Arsenal. Now that would drive the price right up
ideal scenario....City walk away and come back in with a 30 million bid on 31st August
And then we turn that down, why would we accept an offer we have already refused?
More likely we will let it drag on and then tell them to do one!
a player who wants out is poisonous to have in the squad.....look at the negativity it caused in the final weeks of the season and it is disruptive to the team
Liverpool need to get shot of him asap - I'd say if City leave it and come back in with 37 they'd accept that
He'd be a pretty shit signing for you if he's just going to be a Navas replacement I.e right winger. That's not going to get the best out of him.
Really needs to get games ideally centrally or if not then on the left. He's not very good on the right.
If they come back later and offer less it'll be rejected. This isn't football manager.
it was tongue in cheek to be fair...
Liverpool do need him gone though...I'd say a bid of 36/37 would do it
Didn't Suarez 'want out' before that final season?
You could give him to City for free and get one of his companies to sponsor your official wasabi or something to save the 20%
- Status