Sterling Deal Complete: 49 million (44 + 5)
- Thread starter mark1975
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
The club need to stick it to Ward now. Just make it known that it won't be dealing with any player represented by him in the foreseeable future. No need for anything official, but word needs to get around. It won't hurt us now because he's yet to build a list of clients, but it's the best time to hinder his efforts to do so, and he really needs to be made to realise that he hasn't gotten away with all of his antics scot-free. If we had decent lawyers at the club they'd have compiled a set of complaints already about his unprofessional behaviour - agents do have a code of conduct and he's trampled all over it.
I don't get it. In today's market isn't it like Utd paying 27M for Rooney?
If he stays for 10 years then it will have been a good deal.
Thanks Rafa, thanks Kenny, thanks Rodgers ... I'm moving on ... We're better than last year already imo, and we can still get better.
49 mill isnt a good deal for City.
Its the 12th most expencive signing in the World.
Its the same fee as was paid for Zidane.
For Raheem Sterling.
They've paid about 20 mill to much imho.
Sure he's a very talented player and could be great.
But 49 mill. Its insane. English inflation and City megarich owner is the only reason for that fee.
Not his talent alone.
I hate losing him, hate being a selling club again but the fee and his behaviour have resulted in me being very meh.
We already look stronger than last year and will add at least 2 more quality players.
As for the add ons. 1,5 mill we'll never see as thats winning the CL.
1 mill is for winning the PL.
The rest are 500k per 30 games in PL and CL.
Its the 12th most expencive signing in the World.
Its the same fee as was paid for Zidane.
For Raheem Sterling.
They've paid about 20 mill to much imho.
Sure he's a very talented player and could be great.
But 49 mill. Its insane. English inflation and City megarich owner is the only reason for that fee.
Not his talent alone.
I hate losing him, hate being a selling club again but the fee and his behaviour have resulted in me being very meh.
We already look stronger than last year and will add at least 2 more quality players.
As for the add ons. 1,5 mill we'll never see as thats winning the CL.
1 mill is for winning the PL.
The rest are 500k per 30 games in PL and CL.
And one of those 'quality' players is going to be Benteke, isn't it?
The problem isn't so much losing Sterling (although that's an obvious issue) it's our inability to adequately replace him. We lose a player of quality and we then gamble with the winnings.
I can't imagine many, if any, club turning down 49m for Sterling. No matter their financial status.
In footballing terms this a gamble for City. In cash terms it was a no-brainer for us.
In footballing terms this a gamble for City. In cash terms it was a no-brainer for us.
Hopefully we do add quality, but this could be similar to what happened with Torres. We brought in Suarez to play alongside him and then Torres jumped ship, but luckily he was a more than able replacement in the longrun. Let's hope the same can be said of Firmino and we're still in a position to spend further on someone decent. If it's Benteke plus one then that'll be a good deal I reckon, if it's just Benteke then we're sitting here hoping that Origi proves to be a gem too.
But how is that even measured?
They have a bottomless pit, so it makes no difference to them in real - or whatever other - terms.
And a sobering sign of how low Liverpool FC has gone - banking on another club winning the kind of trophies it used to regard as its own property.
Counting it up? £49m plus wages - it isn't hard. You'd need to have a young Messi on your hands to begin to make THAT look like not overpaying. I don't get the desire to indulge them. And as for whether it matters to them or not - that's a different point that has no bearing on whether or not they've overpaid for Sterling.
Your favourite add-ons may be more of a reflection of how the market has gone. We've got £7.5m of them stored up for Hoffenheim in case Firmino is some sort of success
ok.
Though I think the validity of transfer fees can only be decided in retrospect, I also think to a club with endless cash, a difference of £10m (or however much it's decided they've overpaid by) in a valuation of a player is nothing.
Perhaps but I guess it's all about perception. Wages aren't often factored in and the deal will usually be talked about as 49M.
Besides it doesn't really matter to them. They were willing to pay James Milner 160k a week apparently!
Many on here should be mature enough to realize that nothing is for ever. After many corporate mistakes, financial turmoil, competitors with new and vast unearned wealth, multiple changes of football manager and near title misses it's a miracle we're still on the fringes of competing for elite competitions.
It's remarkable we can still see selling a player for a huge fee as some sort of death knell. Our finances are key to improved competitiveness.
It's remarkable we can still see selling a player for a huge fee as some sort of death knell. Our finances are key to improved competitiveness.
Okay. So if a club pays £20m for Borini, it can only be judged a good or bad fee in retrospect? One doesn't have to be that relativistic.
It could well look cheap after another ten years of setting the market price.
This 'besides it doesn't matter to them' gambit seems to be standard now in case the basic argument doesn't work.
No, on the face of it, that looks shit.
But if he then goes on to hit 20 PL goals in the next season for whoever paid that fee, that would represent reasonable business.
Their bottomless pit is one (possibly the) determining factor in the many that make up Sterling's transfer fee. It surely can't be overlooked.
Ultimately I am pretty gutted to lose him. Whatever fee we received.
- Status
