Raheem Sterling

Kramer said:
Havent been following Sterling at Chelsea at all.

How has he performed for Chelsea?

You think he still has enough in the tank to contribute to a team which has ambition to finish in the top 4.

Or has he been deteriorating too fast?
Click to expand...
He actually had surprisingly good per 90 metrics. And he IS a leader and favorite among the younger players. He hasnt been bad. He’s been bad for a 325k/wk player. Thats really the issue. Tuchel convinced them he could be a star level player, and he’s just not that guy.

he’s in really good shape, and puts in the work. At a lower wage he could play a role and put away chances on a top 4 contender. But he can’t be an impact starter.
 
TheLord said:
Sancho's market value wouldn't be more than 30m at the moment. That's essentially getting Sterling for free.

30 m + Sterling = Sancho would be crazy even by Chelsea's standards!

If this deal goes through (IF), I think it will be a be just a straight swap (+ <10 m)
Click to expand...
I just stated what I consider to be the conditions United should accept. If the deal follows your logic, then I don’t think it’s worth doing.

The benefit for Chelsea is they get a dead weight off their books and replace with somebody they can sell on for a solid fee.
 
Castia said:
You’ve missed out the most important one that he’s nowhere near good enough anymore. City realised that 2 years ago and Chelsea realised it soon after he’s been shocking for them

Filling the squad with overpaid mediocre players is what got us into our current predicament I can’t believe people are for signing Sterling its mind boggling for me
Click to expand...
Read what I said.

If we get him on reasonable wage, with him or Chelsea taking a hit on current wages it’s worth it if we also get 30m and sancho gone.

The deal I’m suggesting is 40m for Sancho and 10m for Sterling.

Sterling may well have declined, but on favorable terms, at a similiar salary to Eriksen maybe we benefit in the short term. Compared to a situation where Sancho stays and doesn’t play.

I also believe it gives Rashford a kick up the arse and at best we either see him perform or see Sterling bettering him, thus allowing us to finally let Marcus go.
 
Would Sancho even get much game time for them with that massive squad of players? I wouldn't really see it.

If we say that both Sterling and Sancho take a pay cut, and therefore Chelsea could more easily sell him than us at some point in the future, why wouldn't Sancho just agree to a pay cut to sign for a team where he will play now? Maybe he really believes in himself or Chelsea would bullshit him over potential playing time. Good idea for Chelsea if they got him on lower wages and eventually loaned him out then ended up selling him for a decent fee instead of being lumbered with Sterling on his wages at his age.

Could see him featuring in the Conference League squad regularly as he's homegrown in England and they're a bit light in that should Chalobah, Chilwell, Broja and Sterling himself leave. But I doubt that has his mouth watering.
 
Last edited:
This can't happen. I have been teasing friends who are Arsenal fans for over a week that this washed up moaner is going to join them and we get linked with him...:eek:

The idea of getting rid of Sancho is very very enticing as he has been useless for us but then to get Raheem or Chilli or both in exchange would be horrible. This would like Casemiro or Eriksen signings where we can't wait to get rid of them, and they were at least useful for a season.
 
I'm not opposed to a half-season-long loan for Sterling if we pay only half his wages, and if we can get Sancho out even if it's a loan (doesn't need to be Chelsea).

Our wingers are out of form and we need someone competent and experienced enough as a stop gap.
 
He can't be a serious consideration. Would be a desperate, short-sighted move and I don't think United need another immensely frustrating player with okay numbers who sucks at the basic stuff and has massive issues with consistency. Don't do this to yourselves.
 
Smacky The Frog said:
He can't be a serious consideration. Would be a desperate, short-sighted move and I don't think United need another immensely frustrating player with okay numbers who sucks at the basic stuff and has massive issues with consistency. Don't do this to yourselves.
Click to expand...
His numbers aren't okay for us. We play half our games at Old Trafford.
 
AkaAkuma said:
Read what I said.

If we get him on reasonable wage, with him or Chelsea taking a hit on current wages it’s worth it if we also get 30m and sancho gone.

The deal I’m suggesting is 40m for Sancho and 10m for Sterling.

Sterling may well have declined, but on favorable terms, at a similiar salary to Eriksen maybe we benefit in the short term. Compared to a situation where Sancho stays and doesn’t play.

I also believe it gives Rashford a kick up the arse and at best we either see him perform or see Sterling bettering him, thus allowing us to finally let Marcus go.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. You are suggesting Sterling + 30M fee for Sancho with Chelsea also paying a portion of Sterling's wages while also taking on Sancho's full salary with no salary compensation from United? Is it just me or does that deal seem very lopsided and not in any way fair or realistic? :lol:

Sterling and Sancho are both outcasts at their current clubs and earning a level of salary they should have no business earning. Both clubs desperately want to get rid and neither are in a position of making unrealistic demands just so they can get bailed out of financial mistakes made in the past.
 
Rnd898 said:
So let me get this straight. You are suggesting Sterling + 30M fee for Sancho with Chelsea also paying a portion of Sterling's wages while also taking on Sancho's full salary with no salary compensation from United? Is it just me or does that deal seem very lopsided and not in any way fair or realistic? :lol:

Sterling and Sancho are both outcasts at their current clubs and earning a level of salary they should have no business earning. Both clubs desperately want to get rid and neither are in a position of making unrealistic demands just so they can get bailed out of financial mistakes made in the past.
Click to expand...
There's some logic to it. Your guy is 5 years older and has an extra year on his deal, so less resale value and more money left for you to pay him.

Hopefully Juventus follow Napoli's lead and put down some actual money for Sancho to save us all from this weird thought experiment.
 
Rnd898 said:
So let me get this straight. You are suggesting Sterling + 30M fee for Sancho with Chelsea also paying a portion of Sterling's wages while also taking on Sancho's full salary with no salary compensation from United? Is it just me or does that deal seem very lopsided and not in any way fair or realistic? :lol:

Sterling and Sancho are both outcasts at their current clubs and earning a level of salary they should have no business earning. Both clubs desperately want to get rid and neither are in a position of making unrealistic demands just so they can get bailed out of financial mistakes made in the past.
Click to expand...
I think Chelsea see Sancho as a future saleable asset.

Chelsea also have more inclination to sell cheap as they need to negotiate all the other players sales.
 
Why on earth would we want Sterling. He’s worse than sancho. Could never score past us for city. Missed open nets all the time. No thanks. Let’s get the 30/40m for Sancho.
 
Pronewbie said:
I'm not opposed to a half-season-long loan for Sterling if we pay only half his wages, and if we can get Sancho out even if it's a loan (doesn't need to be Chelsea).

Our wingers are out of form and we need someone competent and experienced enough as a stop gap.
Click to expand...
Sterling isn’t competent. He’ll do absolutely nothing to improve us. May aswell stick with Rashford or sancho.
 
This is like the Alexis - Mkhitaryan swap deal on crack
 
Bluelion7 said:
He actually had surprisingly good per 90 metrics. And he IS a leader and favorite among the younger players. He hasnt been bad. He’s been bad for a 325k/wk player. Thats really the issue. Tuchel convinced them he could be a star level player, and he’s just not that guy.

he’s in really good shape, and puts in the work. At a lower wage he could play a role and put away chances on a top 4 contender. But he can’t be an impact starter.
Click to expand...
Sounds like he could be a valuable squad member.

If the wage demands are reasonable…
 
autopilot said:
Both clubs would benefit from having neither.
Click to expand...

Exactly, these guys have no business being at top clubs anymore, but the ridiculous contracts they are on makes it almost impossible to get rid.

Seeing Utd fans saying Sterling or Chilwelll could be good signings, makes me wonder what football they actually watch, maybe these fans must love the misery of being mediocre and having something to complain about, neither of them should even be considered by the club.
 
I mean Sterling was fantastic at City..

Several different bosses at Chelsea later is it any wonder he’s struggled somewhat. The club has been/is a bit of a circus.

Anyway doubt there is anything in this. He doesn’t really fit the age profile INEOS are looking to spend money on so at best a loan or some kind of cheap squad option. When you consider his wages this doesn’t correlate.
 
I would rather keep Sancho than get Sterling.

I would hope Sancho would be motivated and focused and up for the challenge of fighting for his place again. I doubt that would happen though.

No way do we need Sterling though, basically out of the England team and is getting on abit.
 
I'm sure Chelsea will want to palm Sterling off on us if there's even half a chance but I feel pretty confident that we won't go near that deal. He's a really poor player these days.
 
I would like a senior left winger other than Rashford but Sterling isn't it.
 
AngliaRed said:
I would rather keep Sancho than get Sterling.

I would hope Sancho would be motivated and focused and up for the challenge of fighting for his place again. I doubt that would happen though.

No way do we need Sterling though, basically out of the England team and is getting on abit.
Click to expand...
I would rather get rid of Sancho and not bring in Sterling. We finally seem to be clearing out players who aren't good enough, I'm not sure bringing Sterling really helps us in any capacity
 
I am a Sterling admirer and would take him in a straight swap for Sancho. Assuming the former would be on 150K a week max.
 
He's not a star player anymore, but he'd still improve your starting XI.
 
Swapping a 24 year old for a 29 year old both on high wages is not good business. It’s terrible business. However if we can get Sterling and 30million then you suddenly think why not? We can’t get the 40 million we want for Sancho. Maybe a new club bounce for sterling might help us. He’s certainly not someone I want but the way Rashford is playing he needs a kick up the a##e.
 
Steve 007 said:
Swapping a 24 year old for a 29 year old both on high wages is not good business. It’s terrible business. However if we can get Sterling and 30million then you suddenly think why not? We can’t get the 40 million we want for Sancho. Maybe a new club bounce for sterling might help us. He’s certainly not someone I want but the way Rashford is playing he needs a kick up the a##e.
Click to expand...
We don’t create enough chances to let him miss 6 of them.
 
Gabriel Djemba-Bebe said:
Are there any legitimate sources saying we're in for him or are we getting worked up over nothing?
Click to expand...
Di Marzio isn't as on the ball as used to be but he has been saying for a while about Sancho and Juve and he's still excellent for Italian clubs. Wondering if he's heard through someone Chelsea are coming in to rival Juve for him.
 
Vault Dweller said:
Di Marzio isn't as on the ball as used to be but he has been saying for a while about Sancho and Juve and he's still excellent for Italian clubs. Wondering if he's heard through someone Chelsea are coming in to rival Juve for him.
Click to expand...
I’m praying it has come from Juve to make us shit ourselves. If so, it’s working.
 
If it meant getting rid of Sancho,
I'd be happy enough with this as long as he's on massively reduced wages and 2 year max deal.

I always liked Sterling, helped by the fact he was a boyhood United fan and couldn't score against us :lol: .
He always had a great workrate also though I'm not sure if this is still the case.
 
I would feel more confident in having Sterling on the bench that Sancho. He would definitely be more impactful and is a good EPL goalscorer. We don't have many of those. At the right price/wage, I wouldn't hate this.
 
AkaAkuma said:
I just stated what I consider to be the conditions United should accept. If the deal follows your logic, then I don’t think it’s worth doing.

The benefit for Chelsea is they get a dead weight off their books and replace with somebody they can sell on for a solid fee.
Click to expand...

It’s only worth doing for us if it’s a straight swap or United are willing to take both Sterling and Chilwell off our hands in exchange for Sancho.

We have no incentive to pay actual money for Sancho. The only thing that makes sense from a Chelsea perspective imo is flipping two bad contracts for Sancho, then immediately loaning him to Palace or something in the hope that we could flip him for £40m next summer.
 
WeePat said:
It’s only worth doing for us if it’s a straight swap or United are willing to take both Sterling and Chilwell off our hands in exchange for Sancho.

We have no incentive to pay actual money for Sancho. The only thing that makes sense from a Chelsea perspective imo is flipping two bad contracts for Sancho, then immediately loaning him to Palace or something in the hope that we could flip him for £40m next summer.
Click to expand...
There’s zero chance you get a straight swap for Sancho who has more current value and resale value than Sterling.

It’s all nonsense anyway I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.