He only got 1 more goal in the league and a winger shouldn't solely be judged on goals anyway. Harvey Barnes is a better goalscorer than most wingers in the league even though he's extremely limited in most other areas (hence why he rarely starts).
Raheem Sterling to...? | joins Arsenal on loan
- Thread starter Devil_forever
- Start date
- Status
I genuinely have no idea how anyone would want him anywhere near the place.
I'd terminate Sancho's contract before I'd do any business with Chelsea.
I mean, I'm not. Your post indicated that you'd rather play Amad and Garnacho as much as possible. I am arguing that this shouldn't be the case.
Sancho is useless. I believe bringing a player in to replace him who is more productive and actually wants to play football is a nice competitive balance. Having a 5th winger isn't exactly a bad thing and having a seasoned pro who has been around the block is also quite beneficial. We don't need to invest in the future here as we already have Garnacho and Amad. But, we do need to protect their minutes right now.
Good that you don't run the club then.
Harvey Barnes is actually very good and had injuries hamper his progression, for what it's worth.
You need to be more subtle with your wind ups.
Same assists as well. Garnacho is the only one that matches what Sterling did last season and Sterling had 10 less matches to do it in.
To repeat, I don't want him, but I'd argue people must not have watched us last season if they're turning their nose up at Sterling.
I've always considered him limited technically despite racking up good numbers. My opinion on that is unlikely to change. If we were going for an older English winger, Bowen would be the one I'd be up for.
Sterling has said that he was in terrible mood over the summer to miss out on the squad for the Euros and wants to play so much for the national team again.
So i guess he has still a big motivatio to play on the highest level.
Well ones permanent and the other isn't, so if you had to make a choice...
I think Chelsea are being played for mugs. We surely don't want Sterling but if we can dump Sancho on them it's a win.
He has a point to prove and can still be a very effective player, espcially against teams who just sit and defend. He has that quick movement and is very elusive. He's no playmaker, and he isn't clinical.. but he can still cause opposing defences problems.
But I would not take him, because I woudn't play him ahead of Rashford or Garnacho. And his wages are nuts.
But I would not take him, because I woudn't play him ahead of Rashford or Garnacho. And his wages are nuts.
Last edited:
I think Sterling is still a pretty decent player and even his "past it" season was better than anything Sancho has served up here. My issue with this, is the boy has been playing regularly since he was 18 years old averaging about 35 games a season for club and country. It's very rare that those players last to their mid 30's in the Premier League (even a physical freak like Ronaldo was way off the pace when he came back).
He'll likely get a 4+1 contract on high wages and we'll be repeating the same mistakes we've made over and over again.
He'll likely get a 4+1 contract on high wages and we'll be repeating the same mistakes we've made over and over again.
Adding 1 extra goal to the team…someone better put Man City are on notice 21 is coming!
Which England team?
What does Troy Deeney know? His best club was Watford
What do we know? Our best club was......
They can't sign Sancho unless we take Sterling, that's why it's on the table.
No chance. He’ll either agree to forego what he’s owed by Chelsea (fat chance of that happening), and form part of a Sancho/Sterling 1:1 swap or he’ll agree to a compensation package from Chelsea in exchange for his contract being terminated, leaving United free to pursue him as a free agent.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,967
- Supports
️
I'd have to agree with the ex-Watford, Birmingham and HMP prisoner
I think he'd be a decent option for us all things considered, but still think it's a bad idea.
We've built well towards the future this year and need to continue with that. Sterling would be another short term fix, long term problem.
We have enough of those left as it is, let's not add another one.
We've built well towards the future this year and need to continue with that. Sterling would be another short term fix, long term problem.
We have enough of those left as it is, let's not add another one.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,967
- Supports
- ️
I can’t believe I’ve changed my mind. But I have.
Having actually looked into Sterlings season he’d probably be our best winger on current ability.
He really wouldn't
Glad to see more people using logic
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,967
- Supports
- ️
My level of happiness with it entirely depends on the fees and wages involved now. But you can clearly see the logic behind it is he is in metrics a better winger last season than all of ours.
I struggle to see a world where we sign Sterling on a permanent. We’ve clearly been focused on reducing the wage bill and building younger squad, so to swap Sancho for Sterling doesn’t make any sense.
If however, Chelsea would be happy to loan us Sterling without an obligation to buy, and either covering part of his wages or without a loan fee, with Sancho going the other way on a loan with a nice obligation - that I could be onboard with.
He’s not a bad player, and would give us a much needed experienced option who can play across the frontline. If we could somehow agree something like the above it’ll be a masterstroke.
If however, Chelsea would be happy to loan us Sterling without an obligation to buy, and either covering part of his wages or without a loan fee, with Sancho going the other way on a loan with a nice obligation - that I could be onboard with.
He’s not a bad player, and would give us a much needed experienced option who can play across the frontline. If we could somehow agree something like the above it’ll be a masterstroke.
There is plenty of logic behind it. On like 125k a week he would save us a lot of money and be a really good squad player for a few years.
Not sure it’s going to happen - but if it does then look at the terms of the deal. Our guys now are no mugs dealing with these sort of things. Might make us able to get one more player in - plus he will sell about 5 more shirts than Sancho
That's rather damning for Rashford. Barely better than Anthony.
Ah feck it, just do it. INEOS can't just go round doing the thing that everyone agrees is a good idea all the time. They've gotta show all of us that they're more clever than everyone else.
That means doing things we all think we know are stupid just so they can prove us all idiots. Bring it on; I am ready.
That means doing things we all think we know are stupid just so they can prove us all idiots. Bring it on; I am ready.
By that logic, what do you know? And by the same logic Deeney knows thousand times more than youWhat does Troy Deeney know? His best club was Watford
I think your alternative is having a player on 325k per week playing in your reserves
If the options are either swapping with Sterling or keeping Sancho I’d much rather Sterling. Far from ideal though.
Pretty clear if this went through our best winger combo would be Sterling on the left, Garnacho on the right.
Amad has already shown in the space of 2 games that hes not up to being a nailed on starter at this stage.
Amad has already shown in the space of 2 games that hes not up to being a nailed on starter at this stage.
Rio is a huge transfer muppet but he’s probably not even referencing the Sterling move. Hasn’t he got Ronaldo coming on his channel? Could be that.
How on earth can anyone believe we are being run competently if we sign fecking Sterling?
haven't rated Sterling for a good 3 years or so
not for me, clive
not for me, clive
The most reported story is he's on 300,000 a week for 3 more years. You don't think he'd be looking to be close the same to move. He could pull a Bogarde if he wanted to and Chelsea couldn't do anything about it unless they paid him off.
- Status