Sterling Deal Complete: 49 million (44 + 5)
- Thread starter mark1975
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
But bringing unfounded predictions into it renders any discussion pointless. You have to judge on past, present and reasonable predictions. It's no good saying, 'Yeah, but if Borini suddenly becomes a really good player it'll change everything'. It's hugely unlikely he will. It's like saying, 'Hey, Carroll might get over his injuries, find some pace, reinvent himself as a modern striker and then he'll look value for money'.
All very true, obviously.
But, then, in this case specifically, I've countered your hypothetical with my own. With them both being highly unlikely.
In general what I say I believe to be true. Though in some cases it wouldn't be. Like £20m for Borini. For example.
Nah, it was a besides, an aside... not a reinforcement of the main argument. We just see things slightly differently.
I think they got a decent deal out of us. They may be getting bummed on Sterling's wages but we're not party to that and to be honest it's probably not too far out of whack for what they pay anyways.
I think he's a brilliant player and could be great for them so naturally more inclined to think along these lines. If I could convince myself that he's overrated, all potential and the rest of it, I'd be happier to agree.
They've overpaid but everyone does it, and they've got themselves potentially a brilliant player, but it's becoming more obvious that the only real barrier to him achieving his potential is his own attitude. I may be reading too much into it but he thanks Rodgers for the chance to play and showcase his talents, rather than crediting him for any development. The only real people he thanks for his development in any way are his Mum, his management team and Mr Aids.
He clearly thinks he's the real thing, and has thought so for quite some time, and despite his huge potential he's a fair distance away from a polished consistent game changing player who will react to adversity well. Man City aren't great in adversity, they're full of players who hide when the pressure is on, and Sterling isn't exactly who I'd pick to try and reverse that trend. If he continues to think he's already made it he's very much at risk of becoming the next Quaresma.
He clearly thinks he's the real thing, and has thought so for quite some time, and despite his huge potential he's a fair distance away from a polished consistent game changing player who will react to adversity well. Man City aren't great in adversity, they're full of players who hide when the pressure is on, and Sterling isn't exactly who I'd pick to try and reverse that trend. If he continues to think he's already made it he's very much at risk of becoming the next Quaresma.
Yeah, I think they got a pretty fair deal. I think people are underrating him on here.
If they paid any less for him, I'd be very angry about this.
Now, I'll save that anger for when we overspend what we got for him on someone else.
If they paid any less for him, I'd be very angry about this.
Now, I'll save that anger for when we overspend what we got for him on someone else.
I don't know if they got a good deal.
I rate him, but at 50m you're in and around the area where you can buy a world class player.
Sterling is not at that level, but he could end up there. I do think his shooting and attitude are the two things that make it less likely that he'll reach that level.
They've overpaid for a very good player in my mind, gambling that he'll become borderline world class
I rate him, but at 50m you're in and around the area where you can buy a world class player.
Sterling is not at that level, but he could end up there. I do think his shooting and attitude are the two things that make it less likely that he'll reach that level.
They've overpaid for a very good player in my mind, gambling that he'll become borderline world class
I'm not sure who got the best deal. We've got a good wodge of cash, they've paid top dollar for a very good player, who obviously didn't want to play for us any more.
What I do know is that I would prefer to have seen Sterling on our teamsheet for the Stoke game.
What I do know is that I would prefer to have seen Sterling on our teamsheet for the Stoke game.
As we said the other day, potential is an expensive proposition these days.
50M might buy you a world class player but there are very few knocking about and you're then facing competition from the likes of Chelsea, Barca, Bayern and the like. City haven't fared too well in those races in recent years - they went all out to get Hazard and failed, ditto with Van Persie.
Look at it like this.
Utd paid, what was it, 30M for Luke Shaw?
Shaw played for a lesser team, in a less valuable position, had yet to establish himself internationally and had proven less all round.
So 15M more than Shaw?
Sounds more than reasonable to me.
Quite clearly Aidy Walsh and QPR
I'd compare it to the Rooney deal. Similar amount of goals in their previous two seasons(despite Rooney being more of a striker and Sterling a winger), same age give or take a few months, England's biggest star, moving to the biggest spenders in the country at the time. Also Rooney was ten years before, and transfer fees have obviously gone up a lot since(Rooney's was close to the transfer record for a British player, Sterling is a good deal behind).
I think it's a fair deal for both. Obviously there's a risk on their end, he's still young and anything can happen, but generally most players at his age that go for this kind of money tend to pay off.
I wouldn't be surprised to see it turn out to be a great deal for them, but if not, they have taken a decent calculated gamble.
I can't see how we're going to do to well out of this, we waste money as much as City do, but we can't afford to do it. We had no choice in the end, but I'm definitely not celebrating this like some.
I think it's a fair deal for both. Obviously there's a risk on their end, he's still young and anything can happen, but generally most players at his age that go for this kind of money tend to pay off.
I wouldn't be surprised to see it turn out to be a great deal for them, but if not, they have taken a decent calculated gamble.
I can't see how we're going to do to well out of this, we waste money as much as City do, but we can't afford to do it. We had no choice in the end, but I'm definitely not celebrating this like some.
I thought about this this morning and it hasn't really been discussed on here but when you consider his resale value it surely makes Man City's deal even better. Nothing is guaranteed, of course, but you could imagine that even if he is a relative failure over the next two or three years someone like West Ham or West Brom would still pay over the odds to get someone with his 'pedigree'. If he goes on to fulfil his potential or even has a decent few years they could sell him to Real, Chelsea, Barcelona etc probably for what they bought him by that time Sterling could still be 25, 26, 27 with many years still ahead.
Its something to consider when looking at the overall price Man City have paid? Similar to the fact that while we splashed 35 million pounds on Carroll yet were able to sell them to West Ham for what 20 million!
Its something to consider when looking at the overall price Man City have paid? Similar to the fact that while we splashed 35 million pounds on Carroll yet were able to sell them to West Ham for what 20 million!
We can all talk about the future blah blah blah, but for, I suspect our team would be better off with a Benteke in it than a Sterling currently. Last season, goals were the problem. If we put Benteke in it for 35 games, I suspect he'd have made more of an impact that sterling did. We've got creative players now, but not consistent goal scorers.
So for me, I'd take the sterling to Benteke swap. It could be better for sure, but I'd take it due to our teams needs.
I think most posters overrate Sterling, IMO he's good but will never become a pivotal player for a top team. My prediction is that City will sell him at a loss (at least 50% loss) within 3 seasons. However I do think he'll improve City temporarily as he is a significant improvement on Navas who is rubbish.
I think the Rooney deal is a better comparison than Shaw (who I think is a totally unjustified fee)
And the Rooney deal was a reach at the time, but subsequently looks pretty shrewd - it being ten seasons, 340 games and 170 goals down the line.
I just struggle to see Sterling having that kind of longevity never mind productivity.
Very few wingers do though, the ones that last are usually the greats.
We've yet to see Raheem prove he's capable of a full season of top flight football. He's strong but he's slight, and I think he's not quite there yet with the physical demands of 40+ games a season.
I suppose in the end I agree it's a decent calculated gamble, but from our point of view selling him for 49m was a no brained given the risks associated with his development in general and the fact he clearly wanted out.
I hope you're right Ross. I think Sterling is a fantastic player. A few have said Suarez and Sturridge made him look good. I don't agree, he was rampant for us in that title run in and was excellent for us in his own right. He will also have Aguero and Silva to interchange with at City.
I'm trying to convince myself that he won't be shit hot at City. I'm struggling to do so.
I don't think we've sold a shit player who looked good because of what was around him.
He's a legit player in his own right, extremely dangerous with the ball at his feet.
I think he'll be very good for the next few years, he'll improve City immediately presuming Navas is the one to miss out (another example of why you shouldn't spend big money on wingers over the age of 25)
.
But thats not worth investing 100m for. It only becomes worth it if Sterling is one of the best players in the game in three years time.
He's a legit player in his own right, extremely dangerous with the ball at his feet.
I think he'll be very good for the next few years, he'll improve City immediately presuming Navas is the one to miss out (another example of why you shouldn't spend big money on wingers over the age of 25)
.
But thats not worth investing 100m for. It only becomes worth it if Sterling is one of the best players in the game in three years time.
Nice to hear from you again Avvy.
We're not really.We've got a good spine of loyalty. But when you spend time outside the CL, you will see players move to a CL club.
Yes, the QPR bit made it a lesser deal, but really, there's nowt to be done about that. There's no way we were getting 60M
I thought it was a fair deal. We got a lot of money. They bought a lot of potential. It's only business.
Apart from the fact that almost every football fan outside of Liverpool thinks its bonkers money for a 20 year is has done sweet f*ck all so far in his career.
[article=http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/manchester-city-transfers-raheem-sterling-9658097]A complex series of add-ons will be based appearances as well as trophies.
City will pay a maximum of £3m based on their success in the Europe and the Premier League.
Liverpool will be entitled to £1.5m for each Champions League trophy Sterling helps deliver to the Etihad.
City will also have to pay out £1m for every Premier League title they win with the forward.
That means a Premier League and Champions League double next season will cost City £2.5m.
Another one of those trophies the following year would take them up to the maximum figure of £3m.
But there will be few among the Etihad’s hierarchy complaining if Sterling proves the catalyst to such success.
Should he lead them to triumph in Europe alone it would justify the massive sum it took to prise him away from Anfield.
The remaining £2m of add-ons will be base on the number of starts he makes for City in the both the Premier League and Champions League.
City will pay £500,000 after Sterling starts 30, 60, 90 and 120 games in those competitions respectively.
Sterling completed the formalities of what has been a protracted move from Liverpool, signing a five-year deal at City.[/article]
City will pay a maximum of £3m based on their success in the Europe and the Premier League.
Liverpool will be entitled to £1.5m for each Champions League trophy Sterling helps deliver to the Etihad.
City will also have to pay out £1m for every Premier League title they win with the forward.
That means a Premier League and Champions League double next season will cost City £2.5m.
Another one of those trophies the following year would take them up to the maximum figure of £3m.
But there will be few among the Etihad’s hierarchy complaining if Sterling proves the catalyst to such success.
Should he lead them to triumph in Europe alone it would justify the massive sum it took to prise him away from Anfield.
The remaining £2m of add-ons will be base on the number of starts he makes for City in the both the Premier League and Champions League.
City will pay £500,000 after Sterling starts 30, 60, 90 and 120 games in those competitions respectively.
Sterling completed the formalities of what has been a protracted move from Liverpool, signing a five-year deal at City.[/article]
I think a lot of our fans will be happy to never see a cent from those add-ons.
Quite. It's taken a while but the thread has recovered its sanity.
But it's ok though, because addons are important
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
