Bringing in a 30 year old Falcao to a team with Rooney and Van Persie is very different to signing Sterling in a team that has Amad, Hojlund, Zirkzee and Garnacho for an attack.
Raheem Sterling to...? | joins Arsenal on loan
- Thread starter Devil_forever
- Start date
- Status
Bringing in a 30 year old Falcao to a team with Rooney and Van Persie is very different to signing Sterling in a team that has Amad, Hojlund, Zirkzee and Garnacho for an attack.
The thing is if you forget that it's Raheem Sterling and solely look at the profile of the player it does make a scary amount of sense.
We've known all window that we want an experienced Premier League attacker but that the funds were unlikely to stretch to one. Now a player who we wouldn't have seen as available at the start of the window due to wages and fees is on the market, as he will certainly get some kind of partial payoff from Chelsea and they can't really demand much of a fee, if one at all.
He also happens to be very easy to create chances for. And while he has a weird striking technique that leads to some mind-boggling misses, he tends to match or exceed his xG on a regular basis. He also creates, draws fouls, and ranks extremely well for receiving the ball in the box - all things lacking from our attack.
Plus it moves Sancho, who is a non-entity as a Man United footballer as things stand. If a deal that makes financial sense can be arranged, we end up with both an actual footballer we can use and a better fiscal situation, which is a double win for us.
But.. it is Raheem Sterling
Hates-playing-at-Old-Trafford, best-days-behind-him, just-went-out-of-his-way-to-disrupt-his-teammates-an-hour-before-kick-off Raheem Sterling. Does the upshot outweigh the baggage? I don't know. Can't say I don't kind of want to see it happen though.
Yeah, I'm on board with what's seemingly the majority here - I would prefer not to take Sterling. I think that's the challenge though: we're unable to shift Sancho (Juve only want to do a deal with an option to buy) and the only "gap" that has appeared as a realistic opportunity is a swap for Sterling - who I can only assume at his age and with his form, won't be on anywhere near the high wage he is at Chelsea, or Sancho currently is with us.
So, I guess the real answer is: would you take Sterling (hopefully plus cash) at a lower wage in the squad or keep Sancho, considering his wage and attitude? Neither....not being an option, of course (unless we can get Juve or someone else to the table). I think in the above scenario (& only in the above scenario), I'd probably take Sterling if all the above conditions are satisfied.
All this being said, I obviously have no idea what's being proposed behind the scenes. Straight swap (no cash for us), with high wages & a long contract for Sterling - no thanks.
So, I guess the real answer is: would you take Sterling (hopefully plus cash) at a lower wage in the squad or keep Sancho, considering his wage and attitude? Neither....not being an option, of course (unless we can get Juve or someone else to the table). I think in the above scenario (& only in the above scenario), I'd probably take Sterling if all the above conditions are satisfied.
All this being said, I obviously have no idea what's being proposed behind the scenes. Straight swap (no cash for us), with high wages & a long contract for Sterling - no thanks.
Hope it's just a false rumor.
Don't want him here and I don't think he can offer much.
Don't want him here and I don't think he can offer much.
Are Sancho's stats taking into account his time at Dortmund?I've got bad news for you.
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.
This doesn't really make much sense to me. Both clubs are going to have to shift these two muppets in 12 months time when they inevitably flop.
Way to miss the point.
The situation is such that we might face a binary choice between those two players. If that happens, its not just a valid question to ask, its the only question that matters.
Yes a few years ago he was one of the best players in the premier league, but form dipped last year or so he was at City and fell of even further at Chelsea.
He is now 29, seemingly in steady decline, and signing wingers that age nearly always ends badly.
It’s not a binery choice, we could at least get rid of Sancho on loan and save wages maybe get a loan fee. It’s better than getting rid of one player and bringing in another for the sake of it. It’s not like we are desperate for wide players. So we don’t need to have any of them.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,957
- Supports
️
Yep. And they are pretty much his only minutes.
Basically he can dribble but hes not been any kind of threat.
All we know is his Chelsea wage, that doesn't mean that'll be his United wage. So you're kind of selectively speculating to make a worst case scenario. What we're really discussing is hypotheticals.
Getting Sterling on a 4+ year deal on his Chelsea wage would be an awful deal, I totally agree, no argument there. But getting him for a much lower commitment than that seems possible, hence why I think its worth considering.
It’s amazing then that Chelsea are absolutely desperate to get rid of him. Take your blinkers off. This will be a horrendous transfer if it happens.
Still can’t wrap my head around this. He’s fairly good but
1) he’s not great in the final third
2) Garnacho will now have 2 not so great wide players ahead of him. Ideally it would be top LW plus Garnacho. I’d personally rather develop him than give opportunities to middling experience.
3) he will demand high wages
Urgh. Feels like a Woody special. Joins Mount in the alright but was he really needed category.
1) he’s not great in the final third
2) Garnacho will now have 2 not so great wide players ahead of him. Ideally it would be top LW plus Garnacho. I’d personally rather develop him than give opportunities to middling experience.
3) he will demand high wages
Urgh. Feels like a Woody special. Joins Mount in the alright but was he really needed category.
Why on earth would he agree to a substantial pay decrease? If he’s coming to us he’s not taking a massive pay cut.
He was also younger and playing in a top side.
He’s 29 tuning 30 later this year FFS. I’d take him on loan or a one year contract, that’s it.
You'd be surprised. Without a massive pay cut it's a non-starter.
Yep. Not sure why people can’t grasp this.
He’s owed money by Chelsea and that will need settling before anything else.
Evidently things have changed though? Even if this deal does happen. You’d just choose to ignore all the good and focus on this instead? Seems a bit daft to me.
Not only do I want this to happen but I’d want him to take the 7 shirt.
I would take him as a loan for 1 year in the deal that means Sancho moves to Chelsea but no way is it worth taking a nearly 30 year old on huge wages for what will probably be a 3 year deal. I hope we have learnt from Casemiro that it is not worth it long term.
Yes, getting rid of him to someone else would be better, no disagreement there. But given that clubs aren't exactly queuing up to take him off our hands, that may not be an option.
Not only do I want this to happen but I’d want a statue of him erected outside OT - immediately.
Maresca from his own mouth said he spoke to Sterling just prior to the City game and advised him he would find it difficult to get minutes at Chelsea moving forward. Clearly Rio is getting his info from someone inside Sterling's circle. The PR warfare part of transfer sagas is so very boring. You can be sure Matt Law or Ben Jacobs will have a story out in a few days 'confirming' Chelsea's POV that Sterling was spoken to respectfully by the coach before the season started.
Last edited:
I disagree with the last statement regarding last season. In my opinion Garnacho was better he was playing in a team that created little. Sterling had lots of chances created for him and he was poor.
Yes we should add experience I am all for that. However it should be a player that is not in obvious decline
Being brilliant at city doesn’t mean anything under Guardiola. He made Ake decent. Guardiolas style of down the wing and cut back into the penalty area worked for him.
You'd be mad.
Compared to what we have, Sterling is decent and could provide instant quality and experience. Taking on Sterling in of itself seems ok providing wages and expectation of playing minutes are reasonable.
If Sterling wants to play for England he might want to move elsewhere and play regularly. We would have Rashford and Sterling, two out of sorts England internationals vying for the same spot as well as Garnacho. Yes of course they can be injured or rotate sides and Garnacho did play too many games in succession last season and got worn out. Amad is being trusted more and shown excellent parts to his game in the FA Cup.
If Sterling doesn't produce quickly I feel the fans could be on his back, it could turn bad fast.
I wouldn't want to keep helping Chelsea, we signed an injured Mount and nothing to show for it yet.
Is Sterling wanting a large payoff, we hear about AWB and Maguire wanting paying of yet nothing about Sterling. Are Chelsea picking up Sancho's wages. I'm sure we aren't picking up Sterling's Chelsea wages. Same thing could be said for Sancho unless Chelsea want to take a gamble on a young talented player and pay him similar wages.
Chelsea would probably rather have a young player on 300k rather than Sterling if they are indeed sticking to paying a big contract. Some see it as a way of CFC getting rid of Sterling's wages but are we just helping them flip out an aging player to one with more upside. Still the question remains about what is Sterling forgoing on his Chelsea deal or not, coming here on half the wages as a squad player with a view to stake your place doesn't ring true either.
When Sanchez came we thought he'd be on the right yet he upset the team more so Martial and Rashford and played poorly. Do we need more sulky players? Feels like we're as a club pretty much saying Rashford is a bust from here on out. Ideally Sterling gives us a decent year or two and we phase them out for better players.
If Sterling wants to play for England he might want to move elsewhere and play regularly. We would have Rashford and Sterling, two out of sorts England internationals vying for the same spot as well as Garnacho. Yes of course they can be injured or rotate sides and Garnacho did play too many games in succession last season and got worn out. Amad is being trusted more and shown excellent parts to his game in the FA Cup.
If Sterling doesn't produce quickly I feel the fans could be on his back, it could turn bad fast.
I wouldn't want to keep helping Chelsea, we signed an injured Mount and nothing to show for it yet.
Is Sterling wanting a large payoff, we hear about AWB and Maguire wanting paying of yet nothing about Sterling. Are Chelsea picking up Sancho's wages. I'm sure we aren't picking up Sterling's Chelsea wages. Same thing could be said for Sancho unless Chelsea want to take a gamble on a young talented player and pay him similar wages.
Chelsea would probably rather have a young player on 300k rather than Sterling if they are indeed sticking to paying a big contract. Some see it as a way of CFC getting rid of Sterling's wages but are we just helping them flip out an aging player to one with more upside. Still the question remains about what is Sterling forgoing on his Chelsea deal or not, coming here on half the wages as a squad player with a view to stake your place doesn't ring true either.
When Sanchez came we thought he'd be on the right yet he upset the team more so Martial and Rashford and played poorly. Do we need more sulky players? Feels like we're as a club pretty much saying Rashford is a bust from here on out. Ideally Sterling gives us a decent year or two and we phase them out for better players.
Last edited:
I don’t see a way this could work out without us being stuck with an ageing winger on high wages, who would only be a squad player for us anyway. Fingers crossed that this doesn’t happen.
Sterling appears to be all of the worst tendencies of our existing wingers channeled into one player.
Real Madrid were desperate to sell Di Maria and Özil, PSG desperate to sell Ugarte and Barcelona desperate to sell Frenkie de Jong but he refused and even so desperate for Gündogan to leave they let him go for free. Chelsea wanting him out doesn't mean much at all. They have absolutely no need for him with their 7 wingers, but playing Mudryk ahead is laughable because Sterling is objectively a much better player.
What's the problem? Sterling bang your wife or something? What's so horrendous about scoring goals and assisting more than our players? Don't know why I bother, you're not even replying to the post but just voice your opinion regardless of facts.
I see the Sterling signing and getting rid of Sancho as two different topics to mull over.
Would Sterling be a useful addition to our squad? I'd say quite possibly he would be. I'd be willing to see how it pans out and wouldn't be too unhappy with us getting him. I look at our wing options and see that arguably he has potential to be more impactful than, say, Anthony - at least right now. Whether it works out like that only time will tell. I think it's worth a punt as we have some very inconsistent players in that area.
I would be happy to see the back of Sancho. There's a player there, but it hasn't gone well for him at United. He's on big wages and isn't going to be playing enough to justify them, that seems pretty clear. The manager wants him gone. I don't really give two shiny shites where he goes. Be great if he could kick on and work things out, but I think the ship has sailed. Time to do one.
I'm not sure a straight swap is particularly good value, on paper, but seems like that is what is being talked about and largely I'd be ok to see how this works out.
Would Sterling be a useful addition to our squad? I'd say quite possibly he would be. I'd be willing to see how it pans out and wouldn't be too unhappy with us getting him. I look at our wing options and see that arguably he has potential to be more impactful than, say, Anthony - at least right now. Whether it works out like that only time will tell. I think it's worth a punt as we have some very inconsistent players in that area.
I would be happy to see the back of Sancho. There's a player there, but it hasn't gone well for him at United. He's on big wages and isn't going to be playing enough to justify them, that seems pretty clear. The manager wants him gone. I don't really give two shiny shites where he goes. Be great if he could kick on and work things out, but I think the ship has sailed. Time to do one.
I'm not sure a straight swap is particularly good value, on paper, but seems like that is what is being talked about and largely I'd be ok to see how this works out.
I agree with this, one of Brighton's best moves has been bringing in older experienced players to help the younger ones develop, Welbeck, Lallana and Milner for instance may not have played a huge amount due to age and injuries, but they are all model professionals and the influence they have had on our younger, developing players has apparently been huge. You have a lot of young talent at the moment and a respected professional who has seen and won alot in the squad can really help in the dressing room.
Would he make us better I guess is the question, which he would
It’s not happening anyway so a lot of people need to untwist their knickers
We sign some top talent of a good age yet one signing unwinds all that? Haha
Simmer down man
If we can’t sell Sancho and they can’t sell Sterling a one year swap where we each pay our current commitments would be a much better result than doing nothing and having Sancho hang around.
Nervously dipping into this thread.
In a summer where everyone we've bought has been a decent age, and our policy of signing older players on whopping long expensive deals seemingly in the past, this would be a very odd deal indeed.
In a summer where everyone we've bought has been a decent age, and our policy of signing older players on whopping long expensive deals seemingly in the past, this would be a very odd deal indeed.
This one has Glazers & Woodward stamped all over it, surely it's the complete opposite of what INEOS are trying to achieve..?
We need to stregthen our options on the wings but im not sure Sterling is the answer due to his age and wage demands.
So basically we’ll finally be replacing Sanchez, what are we waiting for, do it Dan.
It isn't selective at all, it's the only information we have to go off right now. It might reduce slightly if Chelsea subsidise a deal but there's no evidence to suggest those terms will change dramatically.
- Status