If you didn't get Shaw, you could have easily found another suitable LB. City are in desperate need of a good quality HG player and a winger - Sterling solves both problems. If we missed out on him our summer plans could really be in the shit, that was not the case for you with Shaw.
Raheem Sterling | Signs for Man City for £49,000,000
- Thread starter Brophs
- Start date
- Status
If you didn't get Shaw, you could have easily found another suitable LB. City are in desperate need of a good quality HG player and a winger - Sterling solves both problems. If we missed out on him our summer plans could really be in the shit, that was not the case for you with Shaw.
50 mil for Sterling? Mental
That fee is pretty crazy whatever way you look at it. He might be worth 50m in a few years but its not a guarantee. the whole point of buying potential rather than the finished article is that you pay less than your have to when the player reaches their peak. Still I suppose he'll be worth it if he's there for 10-12 years
If (and imo it's a big if) he fulfils his talent then it might all be worth it, but I don't think he has the attitude to reach the highest level.
Still can't understand all thise smileys though, English players are ridiculously overpriced, we spent around 27 - 29 mil on a left back, and obviously attacking players usually move for more than defenders.
And regarding the wages, offering a 21 year old who came from league one 170 k didn't do much harm to Chelsea's wage structure, did it? Then ppl are asking where he will be when he is 24/25. Well Rooney forced a 250 k week when he was exactly that age and that was 5 years ago without the new TV deal. So if in 4 years Sterling gets an increased wage offer then it will mean he has developed well, otherwise City will probably get rid and recoup some of the fee paid.
Again I don't even rate him that highly but compared to wages and fees for other English players it's not that laughable as Sterling is clearly more talented than (almost) any other English player of his generation (which isn't high praise considering the general poor quality of English players, but this doesn't seem to effect their price).
Still can't understand all thise smileys though, English players are ridiculously overpriced, we spent around 27 - 29 mil on a left back, and obviously attacking players usually move for more than defenders.
And regarding the wages, offering a 21 year old who came from league one 170 k didn't do much harm to Chelsea's wage structure, did it? Then ppl are asking where he will be when he is 24/25. Well Rooney forced a 250 k week when he was exactly that age and that was 5 years ago without the new TV deal. So if in 4 years Sterling gets an increased wage offer then it will mean he has developed well, otherwise City will probably get rid and recoup some of the fee paid.
Again I don't even rate him that highly but compared to wages and fees for other English players it's not that laughable as Sterling is clearly more talented than (almost) any other English player of his generation (which isn't high praise considering the general poor quality of English players, but this doesn't seem to effect their price).
Im pretty sure the same argument applies to you.
I don't have any problem with the price. City are getting a world class talent for that money. I imagine we paid the same amount for Rooney(if we factor in inflation) and nobody will say that it was a bad deal for us. The only worry for City fans should be his attitude and the way he handled the transfer. Potential wise I think he's a gem.
It's the sort of fee I expected him to go for if he ever left. After he requested a move though, and generally acted so unprofessionally I did expect City to get a discount.
And they did to be fair, £1 million
And they did to be fair, £1 million
They were showing stats on Sky Sports earlier comparing him to Silva, Nasri and Navas and he had the worst dribbling stats out of the lot. Anyway he might yet fail the medical due to having no backbone.
How? We need English players, it's an absolute must for us to sign a couple this summer. If you didn't get Shaw you would have looked for the next best LB available, of any nationality. If we missed out on Sterling then there is no adequate substitute for his style and ability from the pool of English talent.
£49m a perfectly good deal for Liverpool but lets not pretend that City aren't getting a good player because Sterling is an extremely promising young talent.
Sky showed a stat which indicated his dribbling isn't as good as many make out
We should bid £75 million, offer him £300,000 a week, leak all the details to the media including him snubbing City, then cancel the deal and watch the world implode.
Ehm,he is not on 120k a week,thats one,2nd paying double or more is such a big deal,like a said one of those moments,paying Shaw 100k is a big deal too just not on the same level. Shaw on 100k or less,Sterling on 200k and so on,one day everything will collapse and drop on clubs,just because someone out there was desperate enough to open the door for those deals,thats not even including agents.
I would be interested to see those stats.
Obviously if they prove me wrong then all stats are worthless anyway!
History repeating itself? Another young English talent leaving Merseyside for Manchester for an extraordinary amount of money.
Mate you can't question the reports on wages and then throw out this.
I actually agree on be first point. Just like Sterling 200k, Rooneys 300k, Youngs 120k and Shaws 100+k a week. The media say it and we act like its fact.
For me it's not a laughable deal or do ever think it'll be a bargain. Hes already one of the best in the league at 20 has potential to be even better. But last year would be a concern, already asking for so much at a young age, the problems clearly got to his head and we know of his off the field attitude isn't very good.
Careful what you say as I can see us lumping more than that on Kane before the end of the window...
Now let's see what other clubs ask for their top players when City come calling?
Yep.
Ahh City
City: "£30 million for Sterling"
Scousers: "£50 million"
"35?"
"50"
"40?"
"50"
"49??"
"Deal"
Scousers: "£50 million"
"35?"
"50"
"40?"
"50"
"49??"
"Deal"
And then all the 'forget about the money' talk will come out.
For what it's worth, I hope we don't go anywhere near Kane until he proves himself for more than just 6-7 months.
Well if that happens, we deserve all the laughing and mocking that would come our way.
His best attributes are his pace, agility and deceptive strength imo. His all round game is decent with flashes of being good on occasion but it isn't anything special. He can become a very good player if he knuckles down and continues his growth in game intelligence and awareness.
First, why is Sterling a better player? Last season the games Shaw played, he was better compared to Sterling. Also, as a LB Shaw has a better chance of developing his potential, as we have seen a lot of young attacking players who didn't fulfill their potential and trust me, he Sterling isn't as special as people in England make it sound, as you can see these type of players relatively often, especially in Europe (why should he be regarded higher compared to Depay?), but for some reason they don't fulfill their talent and Sterling has a lot of work to do. Shaw is also closer to be playing regularly on top level, while Sterling, again, needs more time.
And as someone said, we had a huge need for a left back.
But the difference is Shaw came after a great season with Southampton, Sterling is coming after not really a good season for Liverpool. Both player were to expensive (29mio for a 19 year old lb is crazy and no one is arguing that). Yes, paying 200k a week for Sterling is a HUGE deal, it's a joke, how can you defend that (of course if it's true).
At the end it can be a great transfer for you, but please, 49mio pounds for a talent? That's almost 70mio euros, you can get TOP TOP players for that money. I understand that you needed English talent and Delph didn't really help, but you must admit this is to much money.
49m
That's to be expected. Navas basically never dribbles and Nasri and Silva are incredibly skilled at retaining the ball and have a completely different dribbling style to Sterling. Sterling is much more direct and tries to beat his opponent, it's only natural his successful dribbling rate is less than the other three. In fact, the very reason his was not as good is precisely the reason we need someone like him in the team.
That is an aweful lot money
He's no where near that tag yet
Talksport would make you laugh. "City fans will be wondering if his heart is really in it or is he using them as a stepping stone to Real Madrid?"
How much do QPR get?
And this is where I think he has major flaws. As I said in Europe you can often players who look great because they are quick, have a good dribbling, but later they fade away as that is not enough. I don't think that he is going to be a flop in a way a bad players become flops, but I don't think that he will be WC.
The guy's the most talented young English player. That's worth a lot to an English club (a little bit of the home grown thing but mainly for commercial reasons - hence why we pay Rooney wages that are amongst the best in the world when he isn't amongst the best footballers in the world). In our post-new tv deal world, it doesn't strike me as a silly fee.
Just seen this. Mental amount of money! He's a very talented youngster but at that price you're expecting Neymar's level of ability. In comparison he was also a lot more proven before he got his transfer to Barcelona.
Other than being English, what has Sterling achieved to earn such a valuation?
Other than being English, what has Sterling achieved to earn such a valuation?
Because he's significantly more talented.
Very interesting perspective from the Daily Mail about loyalty, mercenaries, faithfulness etc.
We aren't paying him 120k/week. Most reports say that it is way below 100k/week. For that matter, I would be extremely surprised if you're paying Sterling 200k/week. Media have the tendency to exagerate these things.
Like what we did on Shaw, I think that you overpayed like 15m for Sterling. But like in our case, money isn't a problem so if Sterling reaches his potential then it will be a good transfer.
£49m and 200k a week is for a player who's already world class, not for a player who could be world class.
£49m is overpriced but not significantly so in a world where Shaw goes for £30m. They're buying his potential, much like we did with Shaw.
In both instances, a stupid amount of money.
According to this we're paying him 80k a week.
http://www.totalsportek.com/money/manchester-united-player-salaries/
- Status