Well, you would think our new owners aren’t stupid enough to offer a significant contract.
Raheem Sterling to...? | joins Arsenal on loan
- Thread starter Devil_forever
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
- Status
Well, you would think our new owners aren’t stupid enough to offer a significant contract.
surely Garnacho has to start every game now? leaving antony and Rash to fight out another
I think that's the situation too. Don't get me wrong, he was great back then. If it was that Sterling Chelsea were looking to swap (which obviously would never happen in the first place) then I'd be all for it.
Nah Sterling at 19 was the season Gerrard slipped to lose the title. He was probably better than Garnacho at that point.
Always concerned about the longevity of players who played a lot as teens and rely on their pace.
Sterling achieved what, 8 goals and 10 assists in 21 starts last season, which is actually very good given the shitshow that Chelsea were.
Garnacho is certainly a starter for us, but Rashford has been unproductive for over a year, Antony is shit and as you said yourself, Amad is rotational.
If anything it sounds like we can do with another proper wide option, irrespective of Sterling.
Also you might want to revisit sterling at 19..
If we signed Sterling to a 4 year deal on his current salary, I would agree. I just don't see that happening, though.
And I would also think Sterling is unlikely to accept a massive paycut on his ludicrous £325k a week contract.
So either this doesn't happen, or someone has done something very stupid.
While he'd obviously be a massive upgrade on Sancho, I just can't have him in a United shirt after Liverpool and City. It just won't work.
I'm not comparing the two at 19. I'm saying Garnacho at the age of 19 last season was better than Sterling at the age of 28 last season. 19 year old Sterling was excellent (though so is Garnacho, far more so than most on here give him credit for imo).
All the reports seem to suggest United open to it on their terms.
I think United hold all the cards here.
I would say length of contract is far more important than the wages. If we get him to accept a 2+1 deal then that would be fine.
Better than Sancho
I suppose Sancho is on a high contract too. I wonder if both clubs would just accept high salary for both players so they wouldn’t need to pay the players off to leave the clubs.
I like Garnacho but he didn’t have a better season objectively.
Difficult this. you know Sterling will at least perform, but I would rather we don't do business with Chelsea anymore. Also, Sterling will be expensive to sign up and he's already 29 years old.
Dont think Sterling will come here with less years on his current contract and less salary (if any reduction at all). In regards to contribution, we already have an attacker that has an attitude issue with poor decision making. Actually, quite of few of those in the squad already
Getting a new winger might not be a bad idea. That winger being Sterling is a bad idea.
This should not be the criteria for signing a winger. There are many other wingers we could sign who would be better for us than Sancho. That bar is particularly low, as is the bar Antony has set. Garnacho, Amad and Rashford are the only wingers we have that are good enough right now (and Rashford obviously needs to improve his current level). Realistically we are going to keep Antony too so we're stuck with him and have to hope he can improve in the situations where we have to play him.
Sterling would sign a 2/3 year contract on around £150k a week. If he doesn't agree to those terms then he simply won't be pursued, so it's a non issue.Dont think Sterling will come here with less years on his current contract and less salary (if any reduction at all). In regards to contribution, we already have an attacker that has an attitude issue with poor decision making. Actually, quite of few of those in the squad already
Terrible analogy. Anyone in their right mind would rather a stint of clap than warts.
I hope this is just media talk. I don’t care about the Liverpool and City connections, more the fact that Sterling is washed up and it goes against all the talk of not signing any more ageing stars on the way down.
The Telegraph reporting any deal would see Sterling being paid off by Chelsea and on reduced wages at United.
At that number I would be ok with it. 2 years, with an optional 3rd. But it's a big drop from the reported 325k.
Totally different. We haven’t publicly unregistered Sancho and cut him off from the team. We can still use him when the window closes. You haven’t even registered Sterling and he is on a massive wage at 29 years old. He isn’t worth a transfer fee anymore and it’s largely in part to how Chelsea have handled the situation.
I can almost guarantee that if this does go through, there will be money going to United as part of the deal.
I think people like having a moan for the sake of having a moan.
Are you really saying that Amad and Garnacho should be playing every single game. You're asking for burnout in that case. Plus, we've seen their decision making is a bit wonky at times due to inexperience.
They need to be rotated and preserved. Sterling isn't everybody's cup of tea but, if we only need him for a couple of seasons to rotate our youth in and out then it's probably a good "purchase." He may miss the odd sitter here and there (he'll fit right in, in that case) but, he's won a lot of trophies which could be valuable for our young group of players who can learn a thing or two about going the distance.
For this deal to even be considered, the following criteria would need to be met:
- Chelsea would need to offer Sterling plus cash.
- They would need to cover the entirety of his wage, or strike a deal that he was happy to accept without wanting a pay off from us.
- Raheem would either need to accept a wage offer of around £150k a week, or Chelsea would need to subsidise his wage so that we were paying no more than that amount for the duration of his contract.
How is a player not good enough for City or Chelsea a consideration for us? Sancho is better than him by miles, its down to us the reason why Sancho is under performing so badly, similar to Rashford who would blatantly turn his form around at a club like Arsenal. I can only imagine how bad Sterling would be here.
Dont think City would be worse off if they’d kept Sterling and not signed Grealish
Like I said earlier.
He definitely was good enough for City
Chelsea would presumably have to compensate Sterling prior to any move. He knows he won't be seeing money like that ever again.
Yes, he absolutely did. Even discounting the eye test which makes no sense in the first place (and anyone who watched both consistently would clearly tell you that Garnacho was better), there are many stats where Garnacho outperformed Sterling.
Garnacho had higher expected goals and expected assists than Sterling. Garnacho significantly outperformed Sterling in progressive carries and carrying distance and in fact he's in the 96th percentile of all wingers for this. Garnacho had more touches in the attacking penalty area than Sterling and ranks in the 98th percentile of all players here (Sterling also performs well here being in the 93rd percentile). Garnacho took significantly more shots than Sterling. Garnacho had more shot creating actions than Sterling. Garnacho had more key passes than Sterling. Garnacho produced far less offside passes than Sterling (which were particularly bad for Sterling being in the 25th percentile here). Garnacho drew more fouls than Sterling, ranking in the 94th percentile among all players. Garnacho has more tackles in the attacking 3rd (the part of the pitch you'd ideally want your attackers to win the ball). Garnacho has more passes blocked and interceptions than Sterling. Garnacho has more clearances than Sterling.
There are a couple other areas where Sterling outperformed Garnacho, the most obvious being the actual goals and assists (though in the league Sterling still only ended up with 1 more goal than Garnacho and they had the same number of assists). As mentioned at the start though, it should be clear to anyone that genuinely watched both regularly last season that Garnacho had the better performances, even at the age of just 19.
Better to leave Chelsea with the weight of £70 million in wages hanging around their neck. Don't bail them out.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...mpaign=1490&ito=social-twitter_dailymailsport
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...mpaign=1490&ito=social-twitter_dailymailsport
What about Sancho's wages?
So we have to accept a couple of things here, one of which is likely factual and the other two are opinions but I would struggle to see the other side.
1) we could do with another wide option that can bring more quality in the final third. Though this is not a must have, it's a nice to have.
2) we do not have funds to bring a signing in this position.
3) we are faced with an unwinnable situation with Sancho, who no one wants to pay money for (yet again). The opportunity presents itself however where a player of established quality can come in on a wage deduction in a swap deal for Sancho.
Given the 3 points above, I see a potential sterling - sancho swap as a much better deal than what is feasible out there. The other wingers can still develop, and if Sterling starts more games it's likely because he's doing very well for us.
It is close?
Troy Deeney: “Sterling is better than ANYTHING Manchester United have got!”
I would sooner have a team of 11 Rashfords than a single Sterling at this point. We do not need another LW.
Troy Deeney: is a clueless knobhead
- Status