The likes of Madird can replace di maria with another glactico.
We are strugglling to attract players a rung 2 below that level.
Sterling Deal Complete: 49 million (44 + 5)
- Thread starter mark1975
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
The likes of Madird can replace di maria with another glactico.
We are strugglling to attract players a rung 2 below that level.
This is exactly it. If I thought for one minute that we would spend the money well. i.e. on the players currently being "linked", I would grab 50M and I wouldn't give a fuck how we looked in the eyes of others.
I don't get the looking weak thing either.
Our current squad and any players we may or may not buy in the future.
I'm not convinced. McManaman and Owen made us look weak. There will always be some players who want to leave. In recent years we are at least getting great fees for them.
We've developed a bad habit of selling our best players. It's nothing new.
I can understand losing players to Barcelona and Real Madrid. I can understand selling Torres as he was declining. Selling the player currently seen as the best young talent in Europe to Manchester City seems a bit different.
We currently lose players to richer clubs, whatever guise they come in. Potential players won't discern which particular club we are selling to, they'll just realise that said club has more money.
All clubs sell if the price is right.
Depends on what we do ourselves.
If we sell Sterling and sign Firmino for half the money then surely both the perception and the reality is of us pulling off quite a coup.
What if in a years time you realise that was just hype?
We should just be adding to him.
What if he turns into the bestest player ever ever?
So what? Given the situation, this seems like a good outcome.
Here's another way of looking at it: if we keep him another year, the fall in his value would be equivalent to the fee for Irmino. So it's either a year of Sterling or about 8 years of Firmino.
I'm fairly certain that won't happen.
But even if he did, we still did alright by getting 50m.
Have you an answer?
What's the question?
Will you continue to be an awful poster?
You are only looking at immediate monetary value there.
You are such a tit.
And also possible longer term team improvement if the money is spent wisely.
hahahahahahaha
Like we did with the Luis money?
If you mean the effect on reputation, I think it's a plausible argument in general but weak in this instance.
As I say, the signs are the immediate response will be strong (Firmino) and will mitigate most of the effect. Then there's the general disdain for Sterling that he's brought on himself, which again is a mitigation. Finally there's the the effect of the change in performance brought about by swapping Sterling for, say, Firmino, Clyne, and Bacca. That's very likely to be positive, especially over the next 3 years.
So any change in reputation is in fact likely to be positive once all effects are considered.
The idea of selling Sterling for 50 m is not bad in isolation. I think the reason several posters are against it is because they dont trust our management to replace him adequately. If we had a decent success rate in transfers I am sure majority of them will be for it. What most posters are afraid of is getting 50 m, giving 10 million to QPR and spending 32 million on Benteke.
You really cannot use Madrid as an example for transfers.
I'm not really giving this my full attention. Soz.
You could have just answered the question
What?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
