You realise we would have to do the same with Sancho's wages right?
Raheem Sterling to...? | joins Arsenal on loan
- Thread starter Devil_forever
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
- Status
What site do you use to access those graphs?Some perspective
He wouldn't be anywhere near being on higher wages would he. Where are you getting that from?
Loan Sancho fairly easily? Yeah if we eat his 350k salary
What planet are you on? Sterling is on way more money than Sancho. Guardian reported it at £325k/week. £17m a year.
Sancho is ~ £10m a year now. CL cuts hit hard.
He put in a transfer request.
Chelse will settle his contract with him.
Don't know if stats reflect it, but it felt like he was on the scoresheet every poxy week for city. So i'd be expecting a few indeed.
Something very off-putting of having a player who played for Liverpool and Man City in his peak. Hard to root for someone you've rooted against your supporting life.
Wouldn't mind this as a loan. As a permanent transfer, no chance.
This is where I’m at. I also think it means we can loan Antony out somewhere too.
Given the profile of player we've signed and been linked with so far under INEOS, this would be a complete 180.
We can't be daft enough to take a player on massive wages, who is completely reliant on pace, already a shadow of what he was, and heading into his 30s.
We can't be daft enough to take a player on massive wages, who is completely reliant on pace, already a shadow of what he was, and heading into his 30s.
How are Chelsea going to settle up a £51m debt to Sterling?
If we offer him even £150k a week, the deficit to his Chelsea wage over the rest of his contract is about £28m. You think they're paying him that? While simultaneously offering Sancho a deal?
Sterling has 3 years left on his contract. Sancho 2 (+1). They have all the power.
No, no, no! Wtf are we thinking?? Hell no, sell Sancho to Juventus or get Chelsea to pay up. Sterling is not a good player anymore.
Sancho isn't better.
You also don't realize that Sterling wouldn't be on huge wages here, most likely. Ronaldo was on 500k per week, Casemiro on 350k on top of the 60m transfer fee. If we basically get Sterling for free plus give him 120k per week wages, it's an incomparable situation to Casemiro or Ronaldo or Varane.
Still confused where Sterling will play as we already have Rashford, Garnacho, Antony and Amad. Haven't seen anything that one of them is leaving. Zirkzee and Hoijlund up top. Where will Sterling play?
No that’s the problem, we will have to pay off Sancho and they’ll do the same with Sterling and both clubs will brief to the media how they’ve got these two players on reasonable wages and the fans will eat it up.
See above
Please. No. We need to stop signing these highly paid, desperation retreads. Loan that POS Sancho and cut our losses. The whole point of Ineos was to end these silly, short sided decisions.
Just no. Don't even go there!
Sancho needs to go and our current stock of wide players don't cut it, but this would be a mistake.
I can't see any positive deal involving Sterling. I most certainly want Sancho out, but recruiting Chelsea undesirables and making them stronger would be a daft move.
Sancho needs to go and our current stock of wide players don't cut it, but this would be a mistake.
I can't see any positive deal involving Sterling. I most certainly want Sancho out, but recruiting Chelsea undesirables and making them stronger would be a daft move.
Bugger, the window was going so well too
This potential transfer doesn't make any sense to me. Why replace a deadwood with a deadwood(older one)?
Something like that, yeah.
Alternatively, any club with a shred of nous would loan Sancho out, with his wages covered as much as possible. Even if we have to top up half of his wages, that's still financially preferable to paying off Sancho while at the same time committing another £20m+ to Sterling.
Sterling and Rashford fighting for the LW off the ball winger spot, Garnacho and Amad fighting for the more creative, on ball right winger spot.
Antony to fetch the balls in training.
I don't mind it for a super short deal but next season we need a world class LW there like Nico Williams or Kvaratskhelia, so whatever doesn't stop that ..
Front three of Garnacho, Hojlund and Sterling.
Rashford, amad and Antony on the bench.
I don't see us doing that. We'll just make a compromise and give him to Juve then, or he stays.
Think it makes sense.
We have Sancho on big money being a twunt and not getting game time.
They have Sterling not getting any game time.
We both either keep both players and throw money at them for being benched.
Or we swap, with pay etc being relatively same and have a "happier" player. Both get game time.
Overall I get sterlings age etc but he is far more productive than Sancho has been for us. Sure he is 29 but that's not old old. He potentially has another 2/3 years and would improve our left wing massively.
For me it's 2 years of Sancho doing nothing (he has 2 years left?) or Sterling potentially starting or playing second fiddle to Rashford. Yeah the money sticks in the throat but we losing that with Sancho anyway with no input from him, as in game time.
We have Sancho on big money being a twunt and not getting game time.
They have Sterling not getting any game time.
We both either keep both players and throw money at them for being benched.
Or we swap, with pay etc being relatively same and have a "happier" player. Both get game time.
Overall I get sterlings age etc but he is far more productive than Sancho has been for us. Sure he is 29 but that's not old old. He potentially has another 2/3 years and would improve our left wing massively.
For me it's 2 years of Sancho doing nothing (he has 2 years left?) or Sterling potentially starting or playing second fiddle to Rashford. Yeah the money sticks in the throat but we losing that with Sancho anyway with no input from him, as in game time.
Would make this window a 2/10
Probably not far off!Would rather save the money and not sign Sterling, instead keeping it for a potential winter transfer if we end up needing reinforcements. Sterling clearly was not in our plans ao we shouldn't change them just because he's available.
We dodged Southgate, we can dodge Sterling.
Keep the faith!
Keep the faith!
On the wing where he is better than all of those players you’ve mentioned. He is not a world beater by any means but he’s a level above all of those other than the good form old version of Rashford. I think a lot are underrating because he’s been at best mediocre at Chelsea. Everyone has been mediocre at Chelsea
Thanks
Doesnt scream a good deal to me. He hasnt excelled in a number of seasons, is 30 in December. Just doesnt really make sense, suits Chelsea more than us - surely if it is a swap we can go for another of their 500 players instead
Personally I don't want and couldn't accept an ex Liverpool player at United.
Owen in my lifetime was enough.
Owen in my lifetime was enough.
I actually quite rate him as a player, or did, but he didn't contribute much last season and is the wrong age profile.
I would definitely take Nkunku but not Sterling.
I would definitely take Nkunku but not Sterling.
Sancho is on £13m/year. It's not that much difference. Ashworth can pull it off.
People keep conflating two different approaches.
High wages / long term contract / transfer fee for ageing player = bad
High wages / short term contract / no transfer fee = manageable
As a short term depth option, with some reduction in wages, it would be far from a bad deal.
Aging players are fine if you’re not committing yourself long term and paying a significant initial outlay.
High wages / long term contract / transfer fee for ageing player = bad
High wages / short term contract / no transfer fee = manageable
As a short term depth option, with some reduction in wages, it would be far from a bad deal.
Aging players are fine if you’re not committing yourself long term and paying a significant initial outlay.
I can see the appeal of bringing him in, but I don't think it's something the club should be doing.
If we sign Sterling (even on a free) then that will seriously mess up my feel good vibes regarding our summer transfer window.
I never rated Sterling much even when he was supposedly at his peak
- Status