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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grand Vizier said:
There are a ton of United fans who despise Bruno Fernandes and want him out. Maybe we should listen to them and feck Bruno off out of the club?! Brilliant logic! Let's listen to a bunch of bedwetters' immediate post-match reactions after a disappointing result. :lol:

And yes, Sterling got better output than any of our wingers. 8 goals and 4 assists in 2000 minutes meanwhile Garnacho got 7 goals and 4 assists in 2500 minutes.

It is not a transfer we spend money on, by the way. Sancho going the other way, as you may have noticed, there are no other club in the world interested in him with his current wages so the alternative is to sell him for pennies, which would be ridiculous given our attacking options.
Click to expand...

90% of the fanbase do not want Bruno out. It's a very small majority and not comparable. Bruno is the most creative player in Europe. And yet again you have failed to actually answer any of the reasons why we shouldn't sign him aside from conjecture about our best player. You're talking as if sterling was putting up insane numbers, our 20 year old in his second season played better out of position and put up the same stats. Stats aside, you obviously havent watched sterling for chelsea - he's been fecking AWFUL. As i'll repeat, boo'd by his own fans, kicked out of england squad, kicked out his club and you want him because he managed to put up one more goal than Garnacho? Insane.

Honestly i never thought i'd see the day that United fans were calling for our most promising winger to sit on the bench so that a 29 year old washed up ex city and pool player could take his place. And i'm pretty sure Juventus are in for Sancho. No doubt you'll be the same one moaning in a years time that we've signed a washed up winger who's turned 30 and can't get him off the books. Do you never learn?
 
If this were peak Sterling, it would be a no brainer. But a straight swap between a 24 year old and a 29 year old seems a bit odd and probably more so a creative way to dump Sancho onto another club's balance sheet than an expectation that Sterling would suddenly become an impact player at OT.
 
iHicksy said:
90% of the fanbase do not want Bruno out. It's a very small majority and not comparable. Bruno is the most creative player in Europe. And yet again you have failed to actually answer any of the reasons why we shouldn't sign him aside from conjecture about our best player. You're talking as if sterling was putting up insane numbers, our 20 year old in his second season played better out of position and put up the same stats. Stats aside, you obviously havent watched sterling for chelsea - he's been fecking AWFUL. As i'll repeat, boo'd by his own fans, kicked out of england squad, kicked out his club and you want him because he managed to put up one more goal than Garnacho? Insane.

Honestly i never thought i'd see the day that United fans were calling for our most promising winger to sit on the bench so that a 29 year old washed up ex city and pool player could take his place. And i'm pretty sure Juventus are in for Sancho. No doubt you'll be the same one moaning in a years time that we've signed a washed up winger who's turned 30 and can't get him off the books. Do you never learn?
Click to expand...
Firstly, he wasn’t calling for Garnacho to be benched, just stating a fact that Sterling had equivalent statistics with less game time. Secondly, he also never said anything disparaging against Bruno, only that a ton of fans don’t like him, which is true. He was actually saying we shouldn’t listen to those fans because they are objectively wrong, thus agreeing with your point…….

Sterling is not washed up. Where is THAT argument coming from? He only had 2000 minutes, some as sub, because he was not in favour with the manager. Let’s face it, there are a ton of Chelsea players that are not in favour or have not been in favour with their various managers. That club is a joke, worse than us! He had a decent first season at Chelsea which many gloss over. If you watch the games you can see that he is far more menacing and direct than any of our wingers barring Garna and he is certainly miles better than Rashford and Antony so as a loan, as a no risk option for a season or two , he’d be a great addition until we sort out what’s going on with those two players at least.
 
iHicksy said:
That;s really incidental since you have to have context - he has to play on the right because for some reason Rashford is undroppable. His best position is left wing. What you could say is even though he was playing on the right he still put up great numbers.
Click to expand...
Sorry but his best numbers are from the right, so surely that would say he’s more effective there?
 
A loan with no obligation makes the most sense but Sancho pushing for Chelsea doesn’t help that.

Ideally Sancho chooses Juve, leaving Chelsea in a sticky situation with Sterling as they no longer have any bargaining chips. Then we grab him on a loan paying on a % of his wages, which is better than him stinking it up at Chelsea causing drama.
 
Garethw said:
I can’t believe what I’m reading on here tonight. Sterling was an absolute laughing stock on here a few months back. Now we are being linked with him and suddenly people are claiming he’d be our best winger.
Click to expand...
Some of our members have impressive self persuasion powers. Man is the definition of a washed player
 
While I wouldn't be opposed to signing another wide attacker, Sterling really shouldn't feature on any shortlist of players we'd consider for that role. He's no better than Rashford, is on the decline and will not really add much to our existing options. He doesn't like to press, isn't great 1v1 anymore and has always been wasteful in front of goal. Very little upside to this one (except getting rid of that waster Sancho).
 
Raoul said:
If this were peak Sterling, it would be a no brainer. But a straight swap between a 24 year old and a 29 year old seems a bit odd and probably more so a creative way to dump Sancho onto another club's balance sheet than an expectation that Sterling would suddenly become an impact player at OT.
Click to expand...
Feels there is an element of that yes.
 
I'd be very tempted to just get 3 players in return for Sancho and waive a transfer fee. Sterling, a full back and a CM.

Which CM options do they have?
 
Raoul said:
If this were peak Sterling, it would be a no brainer. But a straight swap between a 24 year old and a 29 year old seems a bit odd and probably more so a creative way to dump Sancho onto another club's balance sheet than an expectation that Sterling would suddenly become an impact player at OT.
Click to expand...
Probably not just a balance sheet exercise. In cash outlay terms, we might feel we can pay Sterling a fair bit less than we pay Sancho. At £150K a week, Sterling costs less over 3 yrs than Sancho does over 2. And on the pitch, Sterling seems likely to be better this season than Sancho (and Antony, and some would argue Rashford). I don't think any one single alone is enough, but combined it could well be.
 
quadrant said:
Probably not just a balance sheet exercise. In cash outlay terms, we might feel we can pay Sterling a fair bit less than we pay Sancho. At £150K a week, Sterling costs less over 3 yrs than Sancho does over 2. And on the pitch, Sterling seems likely to be better this season than Sancho (and Antony, and some would argue Rashford). I don't think any one single alone is enough, but combined it could well be.
Click to expand...

Yes, we would obviously come out a bit ahead in the deal. But then again Sancho tends to magically play better when he's not a United player, so who knows. This is why the deal seems more of a book keeping exercise than anything else.
 
quadrant said:
Probably not just a balance sheet exercise. In cash outlay terms, we might feel we can pay Sterling a fair bit less than we pay Sancho. At £150K a week, Sterling costs less over 3 yrs than Sancho does over 2. And on the pitch, Sterling seems likely to be better this season than Sancho (and Antony, and some would argue Rashford). I don't think any one single alone is enough, but combined it could well be.
Click to expand...
£150k-£200k/week is what we desire, not what Chelsea/Sterling are ready to agree too.
 
iHicksy said:
90% of the fanbase do not want Bruno out. It's a very small majority and not comparable. Bruno is the most creative player in Europe. And yet again you have failed to actually answer any of the reasons why we shouldn't sign him aside from conjecture about our best player. You're talking as if sterling was putting up insane numbers, our 20 year old in his second season played better out of position and put up the same stats. Stats aside, you obviously havent watched sterling for chelsea - he's been fecking AWFUL. As i'll repeat, boo'd by his own fans, kicked out of england squad, kicked out his club and you want him because he managed to put up one more goal than Garnacho? Insane.

Honestly i never thought i'd see the day that United fans were calling for our most promising winger to sit on the bench so that a 29 year old washed up ex city and pool player could take his place. And i'm pretty sure Juventus are in for Sancho. No doubt you'll be the same one moaning in a years time that we've signed a washed up winger who's turned 30 and can't get him off the books. Do you never learn?
Click to expand...
I suggest you read posts thoroughly before you reply to them.

You didn't list a single reason not to sign him other than "Chelsea fans don't like him, Southgate doesn't want him" and other pointless reasons like that.

You're also just making things up. Garnacho was played out of position? You mean on the right where he is better? I suggest you watch our games if you think otherwise. Not once did I say we should bench Garnacho.

I'm not saying Sterling is our saviour, but short term he can help us be better in attack, and we all know we're struggling offensively. If it was for money, then I would not be for this signing, but it helps us get rid of Sancho too. I actually find it hilarious how some posters - and yourself - in this thread are saying he is absolute garbage, yet he did better than all of our wingers in less playing time, and has excellent off-the-ball movement to make it easier for Bruno to create chances. What are our wingers if he is awful?
 
Insanity said:
£150k-£200k/week is what we desire, not what Chelsea/Sterling are ready to agree too.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and I hope we’d walk away if it was more than that as it stops making financial sense.

But given that Chelsea desperately need a way to get him off their books they may concede an exit payment which results in Sterling not being too much worse off anyway.
 
If we were to get this deal over the line how many goals do we think he score for us? I'm thinking at least 10
 
quadrant said:
Indeed, and I hope we’d walk away if it was more than that as it stops making financial sense.

But given that Chelsea desperately need a way to get him off their books they may concede an exit payment which results in Sterling not being too much worse off anyway.
Click to expand...
I not too keen at £150k-£200k either. We'd offer him a 3+1 contract minimum and he'll be 30 in December. You think he can contribute at a good level for another 3=4 years? Nothing regarding this deal makes sense to me. He is a player on decline and we are not a team contesting for big trophies where he can come in and make a difference. We'd be signing another player who we'd be wondering why we signed him half a season down the line.
 
Steve 007 said:
Not good enough for city, or Chelsea.

Great sign him up. Has any player missed more opportunities for city?

If he hampers Gernacho’s development it’s a crime.

Leave Chelsea to look after their own mess.
Click to expand...
Garnacho and Amad shouldn't be affected but, if he can be used to light a fire under Rashford and Antony's sorry, under performing asses and we aren't paying too much of his wage, let's light that candle.
 
Really can't see what he adds to what we already have? He runs with the ball at his feet, doesn't seem to look up much. We have enough of those already.
 
Devil_forever said:
His dream is apparently to play for Arsenal and is willing to take a huge paycut to make it happen, Arsenal want him on a free too. That would be the only way I'd want him at the club.
Click to expand...
A man utd fan having a dream to play for Arsenal? I get wanting to play for a title challenging team, but a dream?
 
duffer said:
Quote your sources please!
Click to expand...

Regulus Arcturus Black said:
I think you’ve made this up.

Oh wait… it comes from Arsenal “insiders” Team News and Ticks :lol:
Click to expand...

Teamnewsandtix via Patreon​


The guy is considered tier 2 on reddit for arsenal news, has around 230k twitter followers too and seems to regularly leak accurate team news.
 
Insanity said:
I not too keen at £150k-£200k either. We'd offer him a 3+1 contract minimum and he'll be 30 in December. You think he can contribute at a good level for another 3=4 years? Nothing regarding this deal makes sense to me. He is a player on decline and we are not a team contesting for big trophies where he can come in and make a difference. We'd be signing another player who we'd be wondering why we signed him half a season down the line.
Click to expand...
Yeah... Really hard to understand this one. I know Sancho is a toxic asset, but I think changing him for an old, expensive veteran makes little sense. Would be the first warning sign our management team is not as good as we thought...
 
Chelsea do not even want him on the bench.

He have not played a good match for almost a year.

Yeah let take him and put him on 250-300.000 a week.

This deal will be up there with Anthony and Mount.
 
Devil_forever said:

Teamnewsandtix via Patreon​


The guy is considered tier 2 on reddit for arsenal news, has around 230k twitter followers too and seems to regularly leak accurate team news.
Click to expand...

I’ve actually read the article now and to be fair I think that’s exactly what Sterling’s representatives have likely said….

To Arsenal, United, Liverpool, Newcastle and anyone else who could get him out of his Chelsea hole.
 
RatPack said:
Chelsea do not even want him on the bench.

He have not played a good match for almost a year.

Yeah let take him and put him on 250-300.000 a week.

This deal will be up there with Anthony and Mount.
Click to expand...
Add Sanchez to your list as well.
 
Devil_forever said:
His dream is apparently to play for Arsenal and is willing to take a huge paycut to make it happen, Arsenal want him on a free too. That would be the only way I'd want him at the club.
Click to expand...

Be interesting to see if any reliable journo picks up on this over the next few hours
 
Insanity said:
I not too keen at £150k-£200k either. We'd offer him a 3+1 contract minimum and he'll be 30 in December. You think he can contribute at a good level for another 3=4 years? Nothing regarding this deal makes sense to me. He is a player on decline and we are not a team contesting for big trophies where he can come in and make a difference. We'd be signing another player who we'd be wondering why we signed him half a season down the line.
Click to expand...
In isolation I wouldn't go for it. But this has to be seen in the context of a Sancho swap deal, which appears the only way this is happening. We're already on the hook for £13M this year with Sancho. Next summer he'll be approaching the end of his contract, so it'll be no easier to shift him then. Worst case scenario then, we're paying Sancho £26M over the next 2 years. Would I rather pay Sterling the same amount in wages over 3 years instead? Yeah for sure.

Now it might be that we can offload Sancho to someone who will pay a big chunk of his wages. Or we could take a risk and hope that someone will buy him next summer. If those options seem plausible, they may well be better. Only the club will know how much interest they had this summer. But if it comes to a straight shootout between Sterling and Sancho for the same total wages, I'd prefer Sterling.
 
quadrant said:
In isolation I wouldn't go for it. But this has to be seen in the context of a Sancho swap deal, which appears the only way this is happening.
Click to expand...

Depends on the deal of course but I’m of similar mind.
If we get Sterling on 190k wage (with Chelsea doing a deal with the player), remove Sancho’s 300k ish and get in a decent enough fee, that has to be much better than simply keeping Sancho.
 
daba said:
A loan with no obligation makes the most sense but Sancho pushing for Chelsea doesn’t help that.

Ideally Sancho chooses Juve, leaving Chelsea in a sticky situation with Sterling as they no longer have any bargaining chips. Then we grab him on a loan paying on a % of his wages, which is better than him stinking it up at Chelsea causing drama.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I wouldn't mind seeing him on a loan move with us paying only a percentage of his wages. I don't think it would be the worst deal in the world. OK he's 29 and lost that yard but he was still chipping in with goals and assists in a dysfunctional Chelsea side. Not ideal but not the catastrophe some are making out to be.
 
Devil_forever said:
I mean if people are paying to get info from this guy, he's got to have some track record right? Anyway he seems to be rated as a pretty reliable source on reddit.
Click to expand...

People pay for all kinds of shit. Something costing money does make it credible, at all.

We'll see regarding Sterling I guess! Maybe "Teamnewsandtix" really is in the know.

​

 
We are desperate to unload Sancho because of his attitude and the PR nightmare that has surrounded him. At this point the vast majority of the fanbase would move Rashford on, partially because of the media noise and PR world that revolves around him (although the main reason being performance). Are people forgetting that just last weekend Sterling's PR team put out a social media message prior to a chelsea game questioning the manager for not playing him? As much as I am one of the people pushing for the sale of the other two, it would make no sense to rid ourselves of those two problem players and bring someone in who would do something that is as bad as anything those two players have done.

And not to mention he played for Liverpool and City, c'mon people, we're meant to be better than the italians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.