Raheem Sterling to...? | joins Arsenal on loan

Status
Not open for further replies.
sullydnl said:
Which would be worse in the short term.

But potentially a lot better in the long term if it means not lumbering ourselves with a past-it Sterling on a significant contract, who we will in turn shortly want rid of.
Click to expand...

Well, you would think our new owners aren’t stupid enough to offer a significant contract.
 
Woodzy said:
Again, the other outcome is that we sell Sancho and have to further rely on Rashford and Antony as our wide options.

Sterling would be our second best winger. It’s a pathetic situation, but that’s the reality.
Click to expand...
surely Garnacho has to start every game now? leaving antony and Rash to fight out another
 
Dominos said:
Honestly I don't think they've watched him play since 2019. Have they stopped to wonder why England dropped him from the squad completely, City forced him out, and Chelsea forced him out? And the funny thing is, the version of Sterling who got pushed out by City, Chelsea and England, is better than the version we'll be getting. We'll be getting an even older and even more past it version of him, on a lovely 4 year contract probably. It's ludicrous.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dazzmondo said:
Garnacho is clearly ready to be a starter. He was already better than Sterling last season at just 19 years old. He's been by far our most threatening player so far this season every time he's come off the bench. Amad is more of a rotation player at this stage who still needs minutes to develop. Rashford 2 years ago produced something Sterling hasn't managed since the 2019/20 season in the best team in the world, so let's not act like this is prime Sterling the way you are trying to portray. Just because Sancho, Antony and Rashford of last season aren't good enough doesn't mean Sterling is.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dazzmondo said:
Garnacho is clearly ready to be a starter. He was already better than Sterling last season at just 19 years old. He's been by far our most threatening player so far this season every time he's come off the bench. Amad is more of a rotation player at this stage who still needs minutes to develop. Rashford 2 years ago produced something Sterling hasn't managed since the 2019/20 season in the best team in the world, so let's not act like this is prime Sterling the way you are trying to portray. Just because Sancho, Antony and Rashford of last season aren't good enough doesn't mean Sterling is.
Click to expand...
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..
 
Dominos said:
Worst case scenario is we're stuck with Sancho for 2 years.

When we inevitably sign Sterling on a 4 year contract we're doubling the length of time we're stuck with a player who isn't good enough for where we want to be.

I can't believe our solution for a problem that we have is to replace him with someone who may be slightly less of a problem. It's just bizarre.
Click to expand...
If we signed Sterling to a 4 year deal on his current salary, I would agree. I just don't see that happening, though.
 
Woodzy said:
Well, you would think our new owners aren’t stupid enough to offer a significant contract.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Berbaclass said:
Nah Sterling at 19 was the season Gerrard slipped to lose the title. He was probably better than Garnacho at that point.
Click to expand...
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).
 
sullydnl said:
And I would also think Sterling is unlikely to accept a big paycut on his ludicrous £325k a week contract.

So either this doesn't happen, or someone has done something very stupid.
Click to expand...
All the reports seem to suggest United open to it on their terms.

I think United hold all the cards here.
 
sullydnl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Dazzmondo said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Remember the geese said:
Probably because swapping Sancho for Sterling would be a massive saving and give us a player who would contribute more on the pitch. Win Win.
Click to expand...
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 :lol:
 
VP89 said:
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..
Click to expand...
Getting a new winger might not be a bad idea. That winger being Sterling is a bad idea.
Adisa said:
Better than Sancho
Click to expand...
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.
 
AS18_ said:
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 :lol:
Click to expand...
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.
 
GL21 said:
stunned so many are for this. probably mostly to get rid of sancho and relegate Rashford, but this is like exchanging the worts for a dose of the clap fs.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Remember the geese said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rnd898 said:
And we're just supposed to ignore the fact Sancho is just as much a reject at United as Sterling is at Chelsea?

I also don't see how Sterling's value is all of a sudden zero because of everything that's happened. Just now Chelsea are finishing up a Lukaku sale for 30M€ and he's been on the sidelines since 2022 with zero chance of ever returning. Worst case scenario with Sterling he gets shipped out on loan similar to Lukaku in the last 2 seasons where we get at least some of his costs off the books without being forced to take on Sancho in the process.

The only way that Sterling/Sancho swap works is if both clubs agree to meet halfway because otherwise what's the point? Both clubs are desperate to get rid of the outcasts so it's either going to be an "I scratch your back if you scratch mine" type of deal or it just doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dominos said:
I can't believe our solution for having 2 talented young players who aren't good enough yet, is to reduce their game time in favour of an old past it player who also isn't good enough.

We actually gain something by starting Garnacho and Amad. The more they develop and the more experience they get the greater reward we'll get down the line. We'll basically be bringing a player in who has been forced out of his last 2 clubs for not being good enough, dropped from England squad for not being good enough, who will only get worse and worse every year that he's with us, and we won't be able to get rid of him due to his age and high wages, all so we can stall the development of our younger pplayers.
Click to expand...

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.
If all that happens, it’s a deal worth considering - even if I’ve never been his biggest fan. If they’re unwilling to meet any one of those conditions, we should laugh in their face.
 
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.
 
iammemphis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Dont think City would be worse off if they’d kept Sterling and not signed Grealish
 
iammemphis said:
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.
Click to expand...
He definitely was good enough for City
 
Berbaclass said:
I like Garnacho but he didn’t have a better season objectively.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dazzmondo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.