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

Status
Not open for further replies.
AneRu said:
This is the issue with this deal, we want Sancho out because his performances don't match his contract and the same is true for Chelsea. It doesn't help us financially to take on a longer contract, with higher wages and for an ageing player. If we are going to do this it has to be at our own terms and ensure that we reduce the wages we are to pay Sterling. If not, then its better just to farm Sancho out on loan until his contract expires.
Click to expand...
We wouldn't do it under those circumstances. I actually think we won’t do it because in my opinion we only would if the deal was too good to be true.

E.g Chelsea buying Sancho and loaning Sterling covering most of his wages

I think the news around this is just helping us twist Juves arm regarding Sancho and helping Chelsea find a market for Sterling

Im going to go out on a limb and say we have another target
 
Cassidy said:
He possibly could ahead of Rashford or Amad but not Garnacho. Over the past 2 seasons combined he has not outperformed Rashford so its touch and go.

He was dropped from the England squad for a reason
Click to expand...
Rashford or Sterling?
 
SalfordRed18 said:
Terrible analogy. Anyone in their right mind would rather a stint of clap than warts.
Click to expand...
yea clap is less horrible than worts but who actually wants either
SalfordRed18 said:
Terrible analogy. Anyone in their right mind would rather a stint of clap than warts.
Click to expand...
Yea I guess so but would you really want either is the point I'm trying to make. I'd happily make do with what we have...crabs
 
Martial'sEmergingSmile said:
I've got bad news for you.

2pOtZFL.jpeg


Sterling was the worst dribbler of the three last season. A terrible combo of high attempts along with one of the worst success rates imaginable. Statistically it's been 4 years since he was even a league average dribbler.
Click to expand...
Now look at Sancho’s non penalty xG.

It’s in the first percentile meaning 99% of other wingers have been better.
 
MDFC Manager said:
I don't mind sterling but I do mind us helping Chelsea out of their mess.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We help them out, and get stuck with an old over the hill player on huge wages.

I watched a lot of Sterling last year because I was stupid enough to put him in my FPL team. Not only did I realise he's shit, but also cost me tons of potential points.

Watching people do insane mental gymnastics to rationalise this signing is so frustating.
 
BenitoSTARR said:
Garnacho is potentially the better player but if we look at the most recent seasons from both Sterling outperforms him.

I like Garnacho, I hope he can develop into a world class RW, but having someone a bit better than him in the short term takes pressure off Rashford, and gives us a bit of experience upfront that we sorely lack.

We also have no idea what this deal for Sterling looks like, big money? Where have you seen that?

I actually trust INEOS to do a sensible thing here. Having seen them get sensible fees paid for Yoro, Zirkzee, De Ligt, Mazraoui and Ugarte I have no reason to doubt them.
Click to expand...
In terms of numbers maybe but in terms of the eye test Garnacho already looks better. He's a player on the ascent while Sterling's a player on the descent. Garnacho has the pace and the hunger that Sterling doesn't really have anymore.

We could definitely use an additional option on the wings but not at any cost. We don't know the terms of the deal between us and Chelsea yet but it's fair to assume Sterling isn't going to give up his £325k a week deal which runs for 3 more years. Forking out that much money on a weekly basis for a player who has already been declining for the last 2 seasons just isn't smart business, especially when that player is approaching 30.

We'd be kicking the can down the road and likely replacing the Sancho problem with an even bigger one next summer when there are still 2 years left to run on Sterling's lucrative deal. I can already envisage it being prohibitive to the business we want to do next summer. I'd much rather we look to sign a younger player next summer and approach the squad building organically than rush through a deal for a player who doesn't really fit and goes against the ethos of what we've been trying to achieve this summer.
 
He was overrated in his prime and now he’s past his prime. Really hope this doesn’t happen. People can post his last season stats all they want but the bigger picture is that was wasn’t good enough for a shocking Chelsea team. Garnacho may not have quite matched his output but he’s already a superior player.
 
TrustInJanuzaj said:
He was overrated in his prime and now he’s past his prime. Really hope this doesn’t happen. People can post his last season stats all they want but the bigger picture is that was wasn’t good enough for a shocking Chelsea team. Garnacho may not have quite matched his output but he’s already a superior player.
Click to expand...
Answered yourself there.
 
Cassidy said:
They are both not good enough. Garnacho on the other hand
Click to expand...
And so having an experienced option might help a bit here.

Sterling on last seasons ability was better than Garnacho. Having two Garnacho quality players is better than a Sancho/Antony being our 4th winger.
 
I can be level headed about this, I can see the reasons why we'd be interested, but I still struggle massively to be excited or all that positive about it.

Rio reading the room terribly wrong thinking Utd fans would be happy that he might have played a part in bringing Sterling here is so funny, talk about being wide of the mark.
 
Judas said:
I can be level headed about this, I can see the reasons why we'd be interested, but I still struggle massively to be excited or all that positive about it.

Rio reading the room terribly wrong thinking Utd fans would be happy that he might have played a part in bringing Sterling here is so funny, talk about being wide of the mark.
Click to expand...
If that post he made was about this, then yeah he really has!
 
CM said:
We'd be kicking the can down the road and likely replacing the Sancho problem with an even bigger one next summer when there are still 2 years left to run on Sterling's lucrative deal. I can already envisage it being prohibitive to the business we want to do next summer. I'd much rather we look to sign a younger player next summer and approach the squad building organically than rush through a deal for a player who doesn't really fit and goes against the ethos of what we've been trying to achieve this summer.
Click to expand...
This presupposes that we sign up Sterling on something like his Chelsea wages, when the briefings yesterday made it clear we wouldn't. The club not only know that's a bad idea, but they also know the fans think its a bad idea, hence the briefing. So we can rule that out.

Consider it this way - we're already on the hook to pay Sancho £26M over the next two years in wages. That's the financial envelope we're working in. What we want now is the best possible way to offset that cost.

Selling Sancho would be best. Loaning him to someone who pays all or most of his wages a close second. But if those aren't available, then what? If we can switch Sancho for Sterling at the same total salary cost but over 3 or 4 years, I'd argue that's better. Better in terms of cash per year, better in terms of PSR and most importantly, having a more productive player in the squad. And if we can do it where we pay Sterling less than that £26M, I fail to see how that's not better than where we are now.
 
I can't believe some United fans want him in a red shirt.

His association with City and Liverpool is enough for me not to want a player let one an over the hill, over paid player who's days at the top level are behind him.

Nothing about this signing makes any financial or footballing sense.
 
Highfather_24 said:
Exactly. We help them out, and get stuck with an old over the hill player on huge wages.

I watched a lot of Sterling last year because I was stupid enough to put him in my FPL team. Not only did I realise he's shit, but also cost me tons of potential points.

Watching people do insane mental gymnastics to rationalise this signing is so frustating.
Click to expand...
Especially worrying this is apparently being pushed or encouraged by the DoF, isn't he there to avoid these situations?
 
MDFC Manager said:
Especially worrying this is apparently being pushed or encouraged by the DoF, isn't he there to avoid these situations?
Click to expand...
I can't help but think if he is, then the situation with Sancho (financially, personally and so on) must be awful and they just want rid, and rather than a loan deal they view having any player that would actually be motivated as better.
 
Personally I oddly don't give a shit about him playing for City/Liverpool/Chelsea. It's the level he's currently at, his age etc. that bothers me more about signing him.
 
Garnacho’s got something but he’s not ready to be an undisputed starter in a top team. I also think he’s a lot better on the right.

Our senior wingers (Antony and Rashford) clearly aren’t going to cut it, and our younger wingers aren’t going to get us 15+ goals a season yet.

Sterling is still a good player and would be our best winger. He’d help bridge the gap whilst Amad and in particular Garnacho physically develop. As long as this is a max 3 year deal on reduced wages I’m all for it.
 
CM said:
In terms of numbers maybe but in terms of the eye test Garnacho already looks better. He's a player on the ascent while Sterling's a player on the descent. Garnacho has the pace and the hunger that Sterling doesn't really have anymore.

We could definitely use an additional option on the wings but not at any cost. We don't know the terms of the deal between us and Chelsea yet but it's fair to assume Sterling isn't going to give up his £325k a week deal which runs for 3 more years. Forking out that much money on a weekly basis for a player who has already been declining for the last 2 seasons just isn't smart business, especially when that player is approaching 30.

We'd be kicking the can down the road and likely replacing the Sancho problem with an even bigger one next summer when there are still 2 years left to run on Sterling's lucrative deal. I can already envisage it being prohibitive to the business we want to do next summer. I'd much rather we look to sign a younger player next summer and approach the squad building organically than rush through a deal for a player who doesn't really fit and goes against the ethos of what we've been trying to achieve this summer.
Click to expand...
Dalot was clocked as United’s fastest player last season whilst playing. Sterling was clocked faster than Dalot and as Chelsea’s fastest player during live matches. I think that’s just a poor assumption on your part without actually doing your homework on the player.

Now I say this as someone who when the news first broke was against it. I had the same opinions as I’d imagine lots of you have. Then I did my homework and actually Sterling profiles really well with what we want our wide left forward to do, has good underlying numbers (not great) and I spent some time yesterday looking at his performances for Chelsea (ratings clips both good and bad).

Sterling is still a very good winger. He’s better (based on last season) than arguably our squad. He certainly raises the floor of the team, maybe even the ceiling in the short term but I’d expect wingers will be looked at next summer along with another CM.

Whilst in the shower this morning I was listening to the Tifo podcast. They were discussing Martinelli and Trossard. I see no reason why Sterling can’t be our Trossard and Rashford our Martinelli. Two good players (we hope) that can rotate during a game to give fresh threat and ask a slightly different question of the opponent.

I wholeheartedly agree with your second paragraph we shouldn’t do this deal at any cost. But it’s something we should do due diligence on as a short term solution to improve our squad depth before next summer. Do you think Ashworth and Wilcox will look at Sterling and consider him a pay anything option?

Again we have no idea the negotiations going on with Sterling. It could be as simple as a loan? It could be a two year deal with next summer us moving on Antony and brining in a better other RW option lets say a Bakayoko?
 
Still miles better than Sancho, Rashford and Anthony. Was brilliant at City, even if you refuse to admit it.
 
Sterling even at his very best at Man City would've always have been a terrible fit for us.

We're a low chance creating, low scoring team - so whenever we do well, it's because our players are efficient in front of goal. Sterling has never been that - he was tremendously wasteful at City but it didn't matter because he was playing for the most creative/highest chance creating team of the last decade.

Him missing 1-2 sitters (by either scuffing a shot or a pass) in a comfortable 3-0 is no big deal. When your games are always sitting 1 goal margins like always are, it's such a terrible fit.
 
Skills said:
Sterling even at his very best at Man City would've always have been a terrible fit for us.

We're a low chance creating, low scoring team - so whenever we do well, it's because our players are efficient in front of goal. Sterling has never been that - he was tremendously wasteful at City but it didn't matter because he was playing for the most creative/highest chance creating team of the last decade.

Him missing 1-2 sitters (by either scuffing a shot or a pass) in a comfortable 3-0 is no big deal. When your games are always sitting 1 goal margins like always are, it's such a terrible fit.
Click to expand...
Is he worse than Sancho though?
 
quadrant said:
This presupposes that we sign up Sterling on something like his Chelsea wages, when the briefings yesterday made it clear we wouldn't. The club not only know that's a bad idea, but they also know the fans think its a bad idea, hence the briefing. So we can rule that out.

Consider it this way - we're already on the hook to pay Sancho £26M over the next two years in wages. That's the financial envelope we're working in. What we want now is the best possible way to offset that cost.

Selling Sancho would be best. Loaning him to someone who pays all or most of his wages a close second. But if those aren't available, then what? If we can switch Sancho for Sterling at the same total salary cost but over 3 or 4 years, I'd argue that's better. Better in terms of cash per year, better in terms of PSR and most importantly, having a more productive player in the squad. And if we can do it where we pay Sterling less than that £26M, I fail to see how that's not better than where we are now.
Click to expand...
We can only go off what we already know. Currently Sterling earns more money than Sancho, has an additional year on his contract and is 5 years older than Sancho. Chelsea might subsidise a deal slightly but that's also a supposition at this point - and crucially, would make this an accounting decision rather than a sporting one.

Sterling might be a marginally better option than Sancho for that reason, and because our manager clearly doesn't like Sancho, but neither of those things are really solid justifications for signing a player. That's the distinction I'm making.

I don't take any issue with the points you've made, clearly that is why the club are considering this, but it's difficult to take anybody in this thread seriously who claims Sterling would come in as our best winger. That's what the poster I was replying to was claiming.
 
Sancho doesn't even get in the matchday squad...he is not a player that needs replacing, he just needs getting rid of.

There is zero need to replace him with Sterling. Midnight on Friday can't come soon enough for me so this rumour can die.
 
Skills said:
Sterling even at his very best at Man City would've always have been a terrible fit for us.

We're a low chance creating, low scoring team - so whenever we do well, it's because our players are efficient in front of goal. Sterling has never been that - he was tremendously wasteful at City but it didn't matter because he was playing for the most creative/highest chance creating team of the last decade.

Him missing 1-2 sitters (by either scuffing a shot or a pass) in a comfortable 3-0 is no big deal. When your games are always sitting 1 goal margins like always are, it's such a terrible fit.
Click to expand...
Tremendously wasteful? Talk about overexaggerating. These are his big chances compared to other wingers in the league each season:

16/17: 4 missed, Hazard and Alexis missed 8
17/18: 12 missed, Salah missed 23, Mane missez 12
18/19: 8 missed, Salah and Rashford missed 16, Mane missed 11
19/20: Missed 19, Mane missed 18 and Salah missed 15
20/21: Missed 13, Salah missed 19 and Mane missed 18
21/22: Missed 13, Salah missed 17 and Mane missed 13
23/24: Missed 11, Salah missed 17 and Diaz missed 13

So as you can see, he is less wasteful than both Salah and Mane and only really had one season where he missed a lot of big chances. It is not exactly shocking for a player to miss more chances the more a team creates. I suppose you wouldn't take Salah or Mané in their prime either, because it would be a terrible fit when the results are always 1-0 or 0-0?

Ask yourself why these chances came to Sterling in the first place, and it is because he has exceptional movement and it would make Bruno's life so much easier in terms of creating chances.
 
I wish this is just a silly rumour and we have moved away from the stupid strategy of looking for quick fixes. We are not a well functioning team yet and there is no need to add a player who in the best scenario will add to deadwood in a couple of years.
 
Getting Sterling in would be the strongest indication that nothing has changed at United in a summer where the perception is that we really are starting to get our house in order.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.