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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shane88 said:
Romano said there is no loan fee and they're paying less than 50% of his wages.

We should've taken him for that.
Click to expand...

Yeah got this awful feeling he will finally break his duck against us probably at Emirates
 
Shane88 said:
Romano said there is no loan fee and they're paying less than 50% of his wages.

We should've taken him for that.
Click to expand...

This is the sign of a not well run club. It happened to us when we loan Sancho to Dortmund and we pay majority of his salary. Unbelievable.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
This is the sign of a not well run club. It happened to us when we loan Sancho to Dortmund and we pay majority of his salary. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...
If a player is loaned to a club, that means the player is under contract to the club that is loaning them out. The player belongs to that club. Generally a loan is for a player to get experience etc.. and I know that is not the case here but that is irrelevant. Arsenal paying half of the wages is a good deal, because legally he is under contract for whatever time period under Chelsea's employment. Chelsea did good to get half of the wages paid for him because it's like Chelsea aren't living up to their contract agreement with Sterling... ie; Sterling is not playing for Chelsea, the club he agreed to play for.
 
Garnacho Libre said:
If a player is loaned to a club, that means the player is under contract to the club that is loaning them out. The player belongs to that club. Generally a loan is for a player to get experience etc.. and I know that is not the case here but that is irrelevant. Arsenal paying half of the wages is a good deal, because legally he is under contract for whatever time period under Chelsea's employment. Chelsea did good to get half of the wages paid for him because it's like Chelsea aren't living up to their contract agreement with Sterling... ie; Sterling is not playing for Chelsea, the club he agreed to play for.
Click to expand...

Under Murtough we loan Sancho to Dortmund and paid majority of his salary.

Under Ashworth we insist on selling him. We got 20-25m and save on his salary.

See the difference with well run club?
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Under Murtough we loan Sancho to Dortmund and paid majority of his salary.

Under Ashworth we insist on selling him. We got 20-25m and save on his salary.

See the difference with well run club?
Click to expand...
Exactly! That's what I'm saying. Half the wages paid is actually a good deal.
 
stevoc said:
We've actually won 5 trophies. 10 years ago Man Utd were a much, much bigger club than Arsenal.

Nothings happened in the last 10 years to change that. Even in our worst period in decades we've still achieved more than Arsenal.

So what exactly is your point?
Click to expand...
You said:

''You mean the last 10 years where we've won more trophies than Arsenal have won in the last 20?''
Click to expand...

False. Its 5 all, including 2004 title and 4 FA cups for us and 5 for you.

''And where we've qualified for the CL more times than Arsenal over the last 10 years.''
Click to expand...

Yes, by an earth shattering one time more than us despite outspending us by magnitudes. During OUR worst ever decade, where, again....we won 3 FA cups to your 5 trophies in the last 10 years, which is your worst decade.

My point is the false exaggeration in your post as if you're comparing Real Madrid to Stevenage. Your post reminded me of RAWK in 2011, where one of their posters was waxing lyrical about 'just Kenny on the phone and drop the YOU play for Liverpool lad along with Stevie G for Kenny there is no way any club can beat that', vibe. This isn't the 90s or 2000s. There is no doubt United have the biggest financial power to win bidding contests and you have done so against us numerous times, but its gotten you nowhere I am sure you'll be modest enough to admit.

I am just reacting to your shock that a London based player, who's worked with our manager before and credited him with his biggest career improvements, would slightly prefer us in the same city than to United who are struggling at the moment. When we were totally in the gutter I'd have no problem accepting a player choosing say Spurs over the mess we were 6 years back. Not sure why you feel so strongly about it.

Come on mate. Our continental history isn't great but we are the third highest league winners who until 2000 was level with you. Since decades ago history matters to you so I'm mentioning it. City had won nothing when Sterling went there, so to players sometimes it's not history it's ££££ which even you'll admit has been a problem for United hence why still it's hard for you to shift so many players.
 
I actually think this is a good move despite not wanting us to sign him. He’s a good footballer who has a lot of experience who if you’re looking at a long term solution at a club in transition is a poor fit. But at a settled team that plays great stuff and just needs quality in depth to win major trophies, he makes complete sense.
 


Straight loan. No obligation to buy.

I am a bit shocked United didn’t go for that. Any reason we wouldn’t?
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Under Murtough we loan Sancho to Dortmund and paid majority of his salary.

Under Ashworth we insist on selling him. We got 20-25m and save on his salary.

See the difference with well run club?
Click to expand...
That's not true on the the loan to Dortmund. We didn't make much but in the end we made some money with them reaching the CL final and qualifying for CL football. Even if they didn't do well, they were still covering most of his wages.

The deal in January was also much more difficult to do. He had been training on his own for months with no sign that he'd be brought back in.

 
Think he could be the difference between a title and a title challenge for Arsenal, unfortunately.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.