Liverpool must solve puzzle of why good players find it easy to leave
Analysis Tony Barrett
Last updated at 12:03PM, April 2 2015
There is an elephant in the room at Anfield, a beast of gargantuan proportions that sits in the corner of an increasingly underused trophy room, which everyone ignores in the hope that no one else will notice.
Raheem Sterling is the latest distraction but his most recent antics should bring the problem sharply into focus. For all the attention on the winger’s refusal to commit his future to them, the questions that Liverpool really need to ask themselves are how have they become such an easy club for good players to leave, and how do they stop it from happening again?
Undoubtedly, Sterling’s decision to record a television interview about his ongoing contract wrangle with his employers without Liverpool’s consent or knowledge was at best ill-advised, and at worst downright insubordinate.
It was also a PR own goal that has damaged the very reputation he was endeavouring to salvage. The image of a 20-year-old footballer readily admitting he turned down a deal worth £100,000 per week and claiming his rejection had nothing to do with money after several months of negotiation about that very subject is not an easy one to shake.
Equally, the constant drip feed of negative stories from Sterling’s camp during and after those talks has done little to enhance his standing amongst Liverpool’s support. At a time when the Kop regularly stages protests about prohibitive ticket prices preventing ordinary fans, particularly those of Sterling’s age and younger, from attending games it would have been more advisable had his stand-off with Liverpool been kept as low profile as possible. That Sterling’s form has suffered as the impasse has dragged on is another reason why going in front of the TV cameras was a bad idea.
But what is done is done and Liverpool now have to face up to the growing possibility, if they hadn’t done so already, of losing arguably their best player just 12 months after they lost Luis Suárez, the previous holder of that title. In the first instance, there will be a temptation to make an example of Sterling either by dropping him from the first team or holding him to his contract for long enough to show him – and, more importantly, others – who is in charge.
There is certainly sufficient disquiet caused by Sterling’s admission that he is “quite flatterered” by reported interest from Arsenal for recriminations to follow but whether Liverpool are in a strong enough position to hit back is open to question.
In the first instance, they have a place in the Barclays Premier League top four to pursue, a challenge that could be undermined fatally should they lose to Arsenal, of all teams, on Saturday. That has to be the priority and that means Sterling has to play against the very club who make him feel flattered, no matter how much that might stick in the craw of everyone at Liverpool. Arsenal fans will be salivating at that prospect and rightly so; not only can their team inflict significant damage on a rival, they have the opportunity to rub it in.
Yet for all the criticism, much of it deserved, that has come Sterling’s way for the way his contract situation has been handled, Liverpool need to rise above an emotional reaction and consider why this keeps on happening to them. Why it is that over the past seven years a brain drain has taken place that has seen Xabi Alonso, Fernando Torres, Javier Mascherano, Suárez and now possibly Sterling depart. And why a club who pride themselves on being a member of the elite struggle to assert themselves when it comes to keeping and signing elite players.
In the past three years, Liverpool have tried and failed to sign Henrikh Mkhitaryan, Diego Costa, Willian and Alexis Sánchez with each near miss prompting hard-luck stories of what might have been. Whether the stumbling block was money, trophies or location, they have been unable to get such deals over the line and that has served only to heighten the need for their other transfers to be a resounding success and for them to retain the services of their best players. In both respects, they are finding it difficult to deliver. Selling Sterling, therefore, should be an absolute worst-case scenario that should only be considered if it becomes clear there is nothing within reason that can be done to keep him.
Selling Sterling, even for a fee in the region of £50 million, is all well and good but when reinvesting the proceeds is so fraught with difficulty, as their flawed attempts to replace Suárez shows, then what is the point? When one considers that the overall package that brought Adam Lallana to Anfield cost in excess of £40 million for fee and wages, then it becomes even more difficult to justify any ideas of cashing in on Sterling, particularly if Liverpool are exiled from the Champions League for the sixth season out of the last seven and their desirability is dented once more.
Those pushing for Sterling to be sold point to the fact that in their heyday, Liverpool coped with the loss of far superior players - and that is true. This, though, is a very different Liverpool. They are a club that find themselves battling to re-establish themselves in the elite but who reside among the also-rans. Since 2006 they have won only one trophy, the Carling Cup in 2012, and that gives players such as Sterling the opportunity to put forward an exit strategy built around a desire for success whilst offering players of similar or greater stature a reason to turn their noses up at Liverpool’s advances.
There is no question that Liverpool have every right to be angry at Sterling and his advisers for the way they are conducting themselves but if there is one positive that they should take from the whole sorry saga, it is that it has offered them another reality check that they must take heed of. It is all well and good for a club owned by a hedge fund to point the finger at an individual’s alleged financial greed in an industry that actively promotes it but Liverpool need to correct the weaknesses that continue to leave them vulnerable to personal ambition when there was a time when they benefited from it.
Regardless of what happens to Sterling, they cannot afford to ignore the elephant any longer and if that means ripping up their existing transfer strategy and offering the kind of wages that Fenway Sports Group would prefer to avoid, then so be it. The reality is that it is impossible to build a club around promising young players if those promising young players believe they can be better rewarded, in terms of both salary and success, elsewhere.
Analysis Tony Barrett
Last updated at 12:03PM, April 2 2015
There is an elephant in the room at Anfield, a beast of gargantuan proportions that sits in the corner of an increasingly underused trophy room, which everyone ignores in the hope that no one else will notice.
Raheem Sterling is the latest distraction but his most recent antics should bring the problem sharply into focus. For all the attention on the winger’s refusal to commit his future to them, the questions that Liverpool really need to ask themselves are how have they become such an easy club for good players to leave, and how do they stop it from happening again?
Undoubtedly, Sterling’s decision to record a television interview about his ongoing contract wrangle with his employers without Liverpool’s consent or knowledge was at best ill-advised, and at worst downright insubordinate.
It was also a PR own goal that has damaged the very reputation he was endeavouring to salvage. The image of a 20-year-old footballer readily admitting he turned down a deal worth £100,000 per week and claiming his rejection had nothing to do with money after several months of negotiation about that very subject is not an easy one to shake.
Equally, the constant drip feed of negative stories from Sterling’s camp during and after those talks has done little to enhance his standing amongst Liverpool’s support. At a time when the Kop regularly stages protests about prohibitive ticket prices preventing ordinary fans, particularly those of Sterling’s age and younger, from attending games it would have been more advisable had his stand-off with Liverpool been kept as low profile as possible. That Sterling’s form has suffered as the impasse has dragged on is another reason why going in front of the TV cameras was a bad idea.
But what is done is done and Liverpool now have to face up to the growing possibility, if they hadn’t done so already, of losing arguably their best player just 12 months after they lost Luis Suárez, the previous holder of that title. In the first instance, there will be a temptation to make an example of Sterling either by dropping him from the first team or holding him to his contract for long enough to show him – and, more importantly, others – who is in charge.
There is certainly sufficient disquiet caused by Sterling’s admission that he is “quite flatterered” by reported interest from Arsenal for recriminations to follow but whether Liverpool are in a strong enough position to hit back is open to question.
In the first instance, they have a place in the Barclays Premier League top four to pursue, a challenge that could be undermined fatally should they lose to Arsenal, of all teams, on Saturday. That has to be the priority and that means Sterling has to play against the very club who make him feel flattered, no matter how much that might stick in the craw of everyone at Liverpool. Arsenal fans will be salivating at that prospect and rightly so; not only can their team inflict significant damage on a rival, they have the opportunity to rub it in.
Yet for all the criticism, much of it deserved, that has come Sterling’s way for the way his contract situation has been handled, Liverpool need to rise above an emotional reaction and consider why this keeps on happening to them. Why it is that over the past seven years a brain drain has taken place that has seen Xabi Alonso, Fernando Torres, Javier Mascherano, Suárez and now possibly Sterling depart. And why a club who pride themselves on being a member of the elite struggle to assert themselves when it comes to keeping and signing elite players.
In the past three years, Liverpool have tried and failed to sign Henrikh Mkhitaryan, Diego Costa, Willian and Alexis Sánchez with each near miss prompting hard-luck stories of what might have been. Whether the stumbling block was money, trophies or location, they have been unable to get such deals over the line and that has served only to heighten the need for their other transfers to be a resounding success and for them to retain the services of their best players. In both respects, they are finding it difficult to deliver. Selling Sterling, therefore, should be an absolute worst-case scenario that should only be considered if it becomes clear there is nothing within reason that can be done to keep him.
Selling Sterling, even for a fee in the region of £50 million, is all well and good but when reinvesting the proceeds is so fraught with difficulty, as their flawed attempts to replace Suárez shows, then what is the point? When one considers that the overall package that brought Adam Lallana to Anfield cost in excess of £40 million for fee and wages, then it becomes even more difficult to justify any ideas of cashing in on Sterling, particularly if Liverpool are exiled from the Champions League for the sixth season out of the last seven and their desirability is dented once more.
Those pushing for Sterling to be sold point to the fact that in their heyday, Liverpool coped with the loss of far superior players - and that is true. This, though, is a very different Liverpool. They are a club that find themselves battling to re-establish themselves in the elite but who reside among the also-rans. Since 2006 they have won only one trophy, the Carling Cup in 2012, and that gives players such as Sterling the opportunity to put forward an exit strategy built around a desire for success whilst offering players of similar or greater stature a reason to turn their noses up at Liverpool’s advances.
There is no question that Liverpool have every right to be angry at Sterling and his advisers for the way they are conducting themselves but if there is one positive that they should take from the whole sorry saga, it is that it has offered them another reality check that they must take heed of. It is all well and good for a club owned by a hedge fund to point the finger at an individual’s alleged financial greed in an industry that actively promotes it but Liverpool need to correct the weaknesses that continue to leave them vulnerable to personal ambition when there was a time when they benefited from it.
Regardless of what happens to Sterling, they cannot afford to ignore the elephant any longer and if that means ripping up their existing transfer strategy and offering the kind of wages that Fenway Sports Group would prefer to avoid, then so be it. The reality is that it is impossible to build a club around promising young players if those promising young players believe they can be better rewarded, in terms of both salary and success, elsewhere.
