• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Sterling Deal Complete: 49 million (44 + 5)

Status
Not open for further replies.
So you essentially think we could get more for Sterling Macca and we've fucked up by saying we want 50m?


I think we shouldn't sell this summer. If we are inclined to, in spite of what we've said, then we should absolutely bleed another club dry with the deal. It has to be a show of strength or it's worse than just losing the player. It's also an admission we don't know what we're doing. The club has said 'No, no, no'. You don't then do as Ayre has done and use phrases like 'in the region of £50m'. Even someone watching bloody Bargain Hunt knows what an invitation to haggle sounds like. If the club starts with a strong and uncompromising assertion, it HAS to find a way to be seen to follow it through or excuse the redescription. It can get out of that with minimum humiliation if it murmurs about irrevocable breakdowns etc between player and club and also gets such a huge figure the other club looks like a mug and we get masses to spend on the squad. Allowing this stupid series of bids to be conducted on the back pages is another sign we don't know how to manage such situations.
 
I know he's not a local lad but he's still been developed here for the last six years and the whole thing makes the club look very small.

Yeah, maybe.

But we've selling our best players for years now. A freaking depressing reality.

In terms of what he brings to the team, it's no Suarez sale but, yes, no good can come of selling a player - who we've developed - at such a young age.
 
Obviously. But who cares? If we put up a sign saying 'Only rational bidders, please,' we'd get about £20m for him, tops.
 
I don't think Sterling is on the same level as Rooney - talent wise it's close but I don't think Sterling will have the longevity that Rooney has had.

Sterling has put us in an awkward spot, we can either gamble on him being good if we keep him or make the best of it by using the money wisely. No sense in crying over spilt milk

I have to agree with this. Rooney has been an incredibly driven footballer - you could see that even at age 18 - the sheer will to dominate, the kind that Gerrard had.

Sterling has similar talent, but he hasn't shown that absolute hunger to dominate. And I think he'd find it more difficult to succeed at City.
 
Obviously. But who cares? If we put up a sign saying 'Only rational bidders, please,' we'd get about £20m for him, tops.

Yeah, but somehow getting 50m for him, according to your post above, is making us look weak.

50m for Sterling is almost insane
 
£50m is a good fee in anyone's eyes and pretty much the top figure that was hoped for. The real question is whether we should be selling him at all. If it's a case of bridges being burnt and there being no way back, then it's good financial sense because I don't think you can realistically expect more than that. There's holding the cards and there's being realistic about it. If we keep asking for the price to be upped we could lose out completely and have the player stay under circumstances that are no good to anyone, to then go through the same saga next year for half the fee.
 
One of the problems that's arisen as this club has evolved/regressed from a top tier to a second tier organisation concerns how it manages its assets. In the old days, the only players who wanted to leave us were 30+ and fading from the first team, so we were respectful of their long contributions and either let them go on frees or accepted a token amount for them. We just didn't have to think about sales. Even in Souey's time as manager, when the likes of Houghton and Beardsley went, it was for a bargain amount because there was almost a sense of disdain for anyone wanting to leave Liverpool. So the skill that most other clubs (such as Spurs) had developed over decades and decades in terms of squeezing the last penny from other, bigger, clubs when buying their best players had remained no more than a seed of a skill for us. And now that hurts. Really hurts. Because we simply cannot afford to be in any way a soft touch when it comes to sales. And we are. We still pay over the odds whilst selling under the odds. We can't afford that, practically or symbolically. Yes, Suarez went for a huge sum but it was still about £20m less than we wanted, so bamboozled was Ayre in the negotiations (hence Barca's gloating put-downs after the sale). And that was an exception. We're now like Spurs, but their slower, stupid brother. If you try to buy from Spurs you'll come out dazed, sans trousers, with an empty wallet and probably a dud for your squad. They're ruthless. They know it's a task to be mastered, a battle to be won. We don't. We're still in that nostalgic 'Oh, let him go,' daydream that's rooted in the 1970s. If you don't want to be known as a selling club, you first try all you can to hold on to your top players (we don't), and, second, if they force a move, you make the process for the buying club so draining, so ferociously demanding, that everyone thinks twice before contemplating trying it on at all (again, we don't). The club has to realise where it's at.
 
Yeah, but somehow getting 50m for him, according to your post above, is making us look weak.

50m for Sterling is almost insane


Say one thing and then accept something else, yes, that looks weak. I thought I was clear on that. PR helps you disguise it to some extent, but we can't even use that properly.
 
I doubt they'd offer straight 50m though. This new bid is probably likely to be 40m + add ons, which given what we owe to QPR, should be rejected outrightly.

Macca is right, we should do this only if they give us 50 straight up.
 
People getting down about this just need to stop moping, really. It is what it is. We've declined and the job is to deal with it and try to reverse it. But a big part of the saga is IMO Sterling himself: I don't think many such players would react like this in his position.

The good thing is £50m gives us a great chance to come out on the right side of this deal.
 
I doubt they'd offer straight 50m though. This new bid is probably likely to be 40m + add ons, which given what we owe to QPR, should be rejected outrightly.

Macca is right, we should do this only if they give us 50 straight up.

That's not what Macca is saying though, we're saying £50m is probably as high as we could hope to get and what we should try to get, Macca thinks we look weak accepting that.

I get that we shouldn't sell, I really do, I just think he's burnt his bridges and if his form at the tail end of last season tells us anything, it's that he's useless when playing under pressure. Do we really want another a season of that, or £50m? That's the question.
 
You cant have it both ways gang. The lad made his feelings very well known to all and sundry, so its a situation that needs dealing with (unless you're in cloud-cuckoo "stick him in the reserves and let him rot...fuck the 50mill" land). Yet, he is worth nowhere near the money we are going to get for him.

Letting him go for 50m doesn't really make us look small - it makes us look like we've been forced into a situation not of our liking where weve secured a ridiculously high figure for a player who is an emerging, NOT proven world class, talent.

He may go on to be a world beater when surrounded with better players, he may not (last season he looked like a fucking amateur). He may stall on the bench like Rodwell and come to regret the decision. Without raging against the state of the game and burgeoning player power there's not much else you can do about this one
 
That's not what Macca is saying though, we're saying £50m is probably as high as we could hope to get and what we should try to get, Macca thinks we look weak accepting that.

No I'm not. What I said is we WILL look weak in accepting that, given that we previously insisted that he was not being sold in any circumstances, UNLESS we massage the story to explain away our actual climb down, which CAN be done, to an extent, via the usual 'unforeseen breakdown in relations' etc.

The story, at present, boils down to this: 'Immature kid and outrageously unprofessional rookie agent walk all over Liverpool Football Club'. It's up to the club to change that story. You think taking about £40m (probably in instalments) plus add-ons (that will probably never be paid) is changing it? I don't. Henry performed brilliantly a couple of summers ago and helped the club immeasurably by doing so. Now he's about as hands-off as Randy Lerner, we're run by cloth-eared twats and we look embarrassingly weak.
 
It makes us look like a stepping stone to City.

Everywhere is a stepping stone to somewhere else.

We were a stepping stone to Chelsea for Torres - how do we look for doing that deal? Smug.

How do Southampton look after we bought their best players? like fucking geniuses
If we sell them a player at twice the price he's worth we don't look weak.
 
No I'm not. What I said is we WILL look weak in accepting that, given that we previously insisted that he was not being sold in any circumstances, UNLESS we massage the story to explain away our actual climb down, which CAN be done, to an extent, via the usual 'unforeseen breakdown in relations' etc.

So we should refuse to accept a good offer because we previously said we wouldn't sell him?

That's dumb.

There's no need to massage any story, everyone knows City are massively overpaying by spending 50m on him.
 
If we come out of this deal with 50mill cash, I don't see how it can be judged as anything but a brilliant heist, on par with the Torres robbery.
50mill for a player, that at this moment in time looks like he'll never justify a fee anywhere near that if he wasn't english. Granted, by some fluke he could end up the best player in the world after leaving us, but I think that's as likely as it was with Torres, than it was with Suarez.
 
Selling him at all makes us look weak.


50 m is an insane amount but what cloggypop and gkmacca said.

Also I am uncomfortable in the way this has panned out in the press. Of course Sterling and Ward deserve a major blame for that.

But once the things leaked out in the press, we appeared to be more intent on winning the PR war and backing Sterling/Ward into a corner and painting them as greedy assholes than getting them to sign.

Again, want to reiterate - Sterling/Ward get most of the blame in the way this has panned out in the press but somehow there is a doubt in the back of my mind - Did we dangle the bait in front of them? Did we even try to diffuse the situation even when the opposition was being unreasonable rather than take the moral high ground? Most modern great players are irrational selfish greedy assholes with an inflated value of their own worth? Do we have the nous to deal with such characters?

I wouldn't be surprised once Sterling leaves, there are leaks along the lines of how he was not pulling his weight in training.
 
For 50 mill straight cash offer without any add ons we should do business.

I dont like selling Sterling and I agree to some extent that it makes us look like a "small" club. But guess what, thats our level these days compared to some of these other clubs.
City will offer him 180k a week and can spend 50 mill on a 20 year old.
Sterling has been a cunt in all this but we should have sorted that contract ages ago. When he burst onto the scene last season with Sturridge and Suarez we should have given him a new 5 year deal with a small pay increase. He would have accepted it without any doubt.
We've fucked about and that is a great example of where we are at these days. Wrong people in key positions.

But, seeing as Sterling has shown what a cunt he is there really is no way back. So a 50 mill offer will, if spent correctly, put us in a stronger position first team wise.
We need Clyne and Firmino could replace Sterling. We also have Ibe who is going to smash it next season. If we have 10 mill left that could go into signing Illaramendi we suddenly look like a much much better team overall.

In other words, I dont like selling Sterling at all but 50 mill for him is insane. His attitude and behavior screams of someone who wont make that final step up. I hope so if we do sell him. If we get the two players mentioned and 50 mill, I can live with it.

But this should definitely be a warning to those in charge. We move so slowly when it comes to sorting out contracts and targets. That needs to change.
 
Everywhere is a stepping stone to somewhere else.

We were a stepping stone to Chelsea for Torres - how do we look for doing that deal? Smug.

How do Southampton look after we bought their best players? like fucking geniuses
If we sell them a player at twice the price he's worth we don't look weak.

Wow Ross.... did Torres & Chelsea win more than us during their time together?

What did all that money get Southampton?
 
For all the bluster about us looking like a small club if we sell.... Well.... We are one?

When was the last time we could attract genuine top talent, who didn't view/use us as a stepping stone to a more successful club?

The 80's?
 
So people would rather we didn't sell him because they think we'd look strong? This is playground shit - this is exactly the attitude we should be looking to exploit in others.

We'd be absolutely fucking insane to turn down 50m in these circumstances. We would be stupid to turn it down. And then next season every time he has a poor game (and they're will be plenty) we'll be reminded that we could have gotten 50m for him.

Did you see Madrid selling Di Maria for 60m? How do they look after that deal?

We're selling him on our terms, the last thing we look is weak. We look like we've accepted the situation is as it is and we need to do the best we can out of it.

You cannot force a player to sign a contract, we were negotiatng for ages. So this nonsense about us not acting doesn't stand up.
 
Wow Ross.... did Torres & Chelsea win more than us during their time together?

What did all that money get Southampton?

Chelsea would have won more regardless of whether they had Torres.

We wouldn't have had Suarez without selling Torres. So really we'd have been a lot worse off for attempting to look like a big boy.

Southampton - they were no worse off for selling those players - but we were for buying them
 
Wow Ross.... did Torres & Chelsea win more than us during their time together?

What did all that money get Southampton?

Torres had pretty much nothing to do with Chelsea winning anything in that time. Southampton finished higher last season than the season before and qualified for the Europa League.
 
It's a very good price. The problem is that if we don't replace him and end up better. Coutinho will be next out the door, and Ibe in a season or two.

If we do replace him well, then this is a good thing, I just have very little confidence in us doing that.
 
Everywhere is a stepping stone to somewhere else.

We were a stepping stone to Chelsea for Torres - how do we look for doing that deal? Smug.

How do Southampton look after we bought their best players? like fucking geniuses
If we sell them a player at twice the price he's worth we don't look weak.

Smug for about 3 hours. Before we did the worst deal in English football history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom