i mean i guess it only makes sense if we cant find someone to take sancho, and essentially are looking at it in a way that we are shortening sancho contract into sterling so we can get out from under it quicker. So essentially getting rid of a shit 4 year contract or whatever for a shit 2 year contract. Idk
Raheem Sterling to...? | joins Arsenal on loan
- Thread starter Devil_forever
- Start date
- Status
I mean we have a serious lack of GOALS. Why people would be against this I don’t know. He would work perfectly with Zirkzee. Its a temporary solution to a long term fix which involves removing Antony and Rashford.
The telegraph article implies its a straight swap. Chelsea can feck off.
Not a fan of this, but he's a better player than Sancho, and also much more likely he would be dedicated and determined to perform than him.
100k-150k per week maximum as another poster said. And a 3 year deal.
If Juve are willing take him on a loan with obligation, I'd much rather take that instead.
100k-150k per week maximum as another poster said. And a 3 year deal.
If Juve are willing take him on a loan with obligation, I'd much rather take that instead.
Sancho only has 2 years left on his contract....
Taking an educated guess I think no money will change hands. Both have roughly the same amortisation value to each club. Chelsea pay him off and let us get him for almost 1/3 of Sancho's wage. That's a win honestly and a massive bonus Shifting Sancho and his wage for no loss.
This reeks of the Sanchez - Mkhitaryan deal. Is Woodward back?
Also a United fan.
This is Manchester United.
He's dreadful. But honestly, I might prefer him to Rashford right now. Good lord.
Would have to be on amazing terms from our POV for me to want him.
It's fine to say he's better than X option we have currently, but the reality is that if we're trying to build a side that will be competing for major trophies in three or so years time (as INEOS say) then Sterling will quickly be another past-his-best player on a big contract who needs to be replaced before then.
It's fine to say he's better than X option we have currently, but the reality is that if we're trying to build a side that will be competing for major trophies in three or so years time (as INEOS say) then Sterling will quickly be another past-his-best player on a big contract who needs to be replaced before then.
I really hope we don't go for this...but if it has to happen then it should be for a very short term and should be ensuring that Rashford gets banished to the subs bench for the forseeable future.
I'd rather sell Sancho overseas as you know he will do a worldie performance against us. I'd also us rather buy another striker option that is not facing such a steep decline as Sterling is.
I'd rather sell Sancho overseas as you know he will do a worldie performance against us. I'd also us rather buy another striker option that is not facing such a steep decline as Sterling is.
Sancho getting in one last laugh.
Someone pass me a shotgun.
He's not dreadful at all though. He's not as good as he was granted but he's a decent player still and a great athlete.
This does have Woodward vibes. I actually think Sterling is a better player than Sancho (not difficult), but it's not a very progressive move...
I'd start him over Rashford, he's also got the prestige that none of our other wingers have that prevents Ten Hag from dropping Rashford.
Really risky signing though, would we not be better off making Chelsea pay up for Sancho then going for an alternative winger?
Really risky signing though, would we not be better off making Chelsea pay up for Sancho then going for an alternative winger?
Woodward would give Sterling a raise and a long term contract.
Would take him only on loan. This should not be a permanent transfer. Like many have said, Sterling is at least better than Sancho so we will have a better option in the team.
Chiesa is the better option.
Chelsea aren't paying a penny for Sancho, they only want him so they can offload their high earner. We're mugs.
The more you think about this one the less any interest would really be a surprise.
You’d assume he’s fairly well known to Berrada and he is certainly well known to Ashworth given his previous involvement with the England set up.
If they’ve determined that Sancho is finished and can work something out with a proven player they trust, then…
You’d assume he’s fairly well known to Berrada and he is certainly well known to Ashworth given his previous involvement with the England set up.
If they’ve determined that Sancho is finished and can work something out with a proven player they trust, then…
We'd also be getting a player that we can actually play...and he'd likely be our most impactful winger and not deadwood.
Didn't the Telegraph report Villa's interest in Sterling as an exclusive too? That turned out to be nonsense so maybe Sterling's entourage are simply sharing stories with someone in the paper in an effort to drum up interest.
That's probably a positive but not sure how much it matters at this point in his career. He probably never expected to ever play for us after two stints at Liverpool and City, and we are definitely his best option right now sporting wise, unless he fancies a few years in Atletico or Italy, or something like that. If he's motivated to prolong his career and do something worthy of note in his remaining years, then it could be a decent deal. But like I said, I'm not a big fan of the move.
Just think he might probably care more
His numbers went t shit once he left City
Sancho is 24, Sterling turns 30 this december, I thought we had learnt from our past mistakes. Can someone send some strongly worded emails to the club so they back out like they did with the Arnautovic deal.
I'm certain if you look up big chances missed Sterling would be right up there. He's the opposite of prolific.
Everything about this transfer feels wrong.
Would I be correct in saying he would be the first player to have played for Liverpool, City, Chelsea and United?
I dunno, both clubs are coming across as mugs to me. Least we'd actually play Sterling.
Sterling to score the winner on Sunday...
Of active players in the PL this season he has the third best tally I believe. Scored 6 goals minimum for 10 straight seasons ?
I don't think we have loads of players like that, actually (to respond to another post), only Rashford.
He's old, possibly washed, expensive. I think it's a little silly to say he hasn't been productive though.
Spot on. He's a system player, his output has never been great pre or post city. Him putting out that statement shows you what he would do here if things didn't go his way. I thought we had learnt from the past, clearly not.
If Chelsea covered 85% of his wages for the next 3 years I'd take him. He is about 15% of a 300k/week player, so fair is fair.
How can people against this move?
Sancho was terrible for us and Ten Hag + Sancho can't work together!!!
If we get money for Sancho and Sterling (Of course not for a 5-year contract) then we aren't the losers of this deal.
Sancho was terrible for us and Ten Hag + Sancho can't work together!!!
If we get money for Sancho and Sterling (Of course not for a 5-year contract) then we aren't the losers of this deal.
He's also entirely ineffective, and does not want to be here.
I'm saying Sterling is perfect, but he would be comfortably better.
If this happens, it just tells you that we have not learned anything and there is a cause attached to us. The sheer incompetence this will reveal is unbelievable, literally against correcting all the mishaps that has been made for many years
If this deal materialises, and I'm not convinced it will, then both clubs will be wondering what the hell they were thinking in a years time.
Please God no
- Status