• 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 has rejected a second contract offer from Liverpool.

Forums Unread posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
A little short sighted if another team pays him the wages he wants, no?

Best bet is to compromise, pay the salary but have a high buy out cause and for him to show improvement/goal tally/whatever so we keep him but we demand a lot for him. Give him challenges so he something to aspire to.
 
It's a good thing that Coutinho's now signed a new contract. Sturridge (2019), Lallana (2019), Coutinho (2020), Markovic (2019) are now all on long contracts. Markovic obviously has yet to fully convince, but there are promising signs, and then there's Ibe looking likely to play a bigger role soon - he's probably at the same stage of development as Sterling was two seasons ago (we need to look at his contract soon though, I think he signed his pro contract at the end of 2012).

So, even if we're forced to sell Sterling with 24 or 18 months left on his contract, we'll still have some promising or proven players in the same positions to make up for it. We're going to miss the threat he offers, but at least we're prepared for it and do not need to panic-buy to replace him.

The reality, right now, is that the richest / best-funded clubs will keep coming back to teams like ours to prey on our best players, and we (or rather, the players) won't be able to resist until we get ourselves on an equal financial footing. We can try to appeal to the sentimental pull of the club on the players, but the pragmatic way is to be well-prepared ahead of time.
 
Red Mullet said:
A little short sighted if another team pays him the wages he wants, no?

Best bet is to compromise, pay the salary but have a high buy out cause and for him to show improvement/goal tally/whatever so we keep him but we demand a lot for him. Give him challenges so he something to aspire to.
Click to expand...

Why have a buyout clause? It's only really for the players to take advantage of when they want to leave.
 
studsup said:
It's a good thing that Coutinho's now signed a new contract. Sturridge (2019), Lallana (2019), Coutinho (2020), Markovic (2019) are now all on long contracts. Markovic obviously has yet to fully convince, but there are promising signs, and then there's Ibe looking likely to play a bigger role soon - he's probably at the same stage of development as Sterling was two seasons ago (we need to look at his contract soon though, I think he signed his pro contract at the end of 2012).

So, even if we're forced to sell Sterling with 24 or 18 months left on his contract, we'll still have some promising or proven players in the same positions to make up for it. We're going to miss the threat he offers, but at least we're prepared for it and do not need to panic-buy to replace him.

The reality, right now, is that the richest / best-funded clubs will keep coming back to teams like ours to prey on our best players, and we (or rather, the players) won't be able to resist until we get ourselves on an equal financial footing. We can try to appeal to the sentimental pull of the club on the players, but the pragmatic way is to be well-prepared ahead of time.
Click to expand...

Unless FSG sell up, and owners with more £ takeover.
 
As his employer I'd be open to negotiations based on targets and loyalty. I expect that is the issue rather than the wage itself. Both parties need to feel they have been rewarded.
 
Judge Jules said:
Honestly not trying to get at you, but is this a genuine question? If it's set high enough it'll deter all but the very richest clubs from trying to prise him away, and hopefully give even them pause for thought.
Click to expand...
I think the buyout clause thing happened in Spain so that it would help the players.
Clubs wouldn't be able to refuse whatever offer came in, as long as a specific amount was met.
What's the difference between a world class player having a 70m buyout clause and one that doesn't?
A club will lose the player with that buyout clause if 70m is offered, while a club can simply refuse any offer put on the table for the player without one, all the while leaking to the press that the player is in fact worth x amount.

Who do you think insisted on a buyout clause in the Suarez contract? There's no way a club wants wo put such a clause in any contract.
They only do it in Spain because they're required to, for player protection.
 
juniormember said:
I think the buyout clause thing happened in Spain so that it would help the players.
Clubs wouldn't be able to refuse whatever offer came in, as long as a specific amount was met.
What's the difference between a world class player having a 70m buyout clause and one that doesn't?
A club will lose the player with that buyout clause if 70m is offered, while a club can simply refuse any offer put on the table for the player without one, all the while leaking to the press that the player is in fact worth x amount.

Who do you think insisted on a buyout clause in the Suarez contract? There's no way a club wants wo put such a clause in any contract.
They only do it in Spain because they're required to, for player protection.
Click to expand...

I think there is also a legal obligation for a buy-out clause so as to not be incompatible to spanish freedom of employment requirements.
 
juniormember said:
I think the buyout clause thing happened in Spain so that it would help the players.
Clubs wouldn't be able to refuse whatever offer came in, as long as a specific amount was met.
What's the difference between a world class player having a 70m buyout clause and one that doesn't?
A club will lose the player with that buyout clause if 70m is offered, while a club can simply refuse any offer put on the table for the player without one, all the while leaking to the press that the player is in fact worth x amount.

Who do you think insisted on a buyout clause in the Suarez contract? There's no way a club wants wo put such a clause in any contract.
They only do it in Spain because they're required to, for player protection.
Click to expand...

I see the argument but I don't think it's that simple. As far as Suarez is concerned, I suspect it was in fact the club which offered the buyout clause as a way of getting him to give us one more season. Where Sterling's concerned, while I wouldn't necessarily be in a rush to offer one, I could live with such a clause in his new contract if, by setting it humungously high, we scare off the vultures and thereby actually increase our chances of holding on to him.
 
juniormember said:
I think the buyout clause thing happened in Spain so that it would help the players.
Clubs wouldn't be able to refuse whatever offer came in, as long as a specific amount was met.
What's the difference between a world class player having a 70m buyout clause and one that doesn't?
A club will lose the player with that buyout clause if 70m is offered, while a club can simply refuse any offer put on the table for the player without one, all the while leaking to the press that the player is in fact worth x amount.

Who do you think insisted on a buyout clause in the Suarez contract? There's no way a club wants wo put such a clause in any contract.
They only do it in Spain because they're required to, for player protection.
Click to expand...

Well, if used correctly by the club a buy out clause of, for example, Messi at £300 million, mean that it's highly unlikely that even the oil lottery winners or the russian gangsters would go for it. That's how I see it.
£50 million + £1
 
Judge Jules said:
I see the argument but I don't think it's that simple. As far as Suarez is concerned, I suspect it was in fact the club which offered the buyout clause as a way of getting him to give us one more season. Where Sterling's concerned, while I wouldn't necessarily be in a rush to offer one, I could live with such a clause in his new contract if, by setting it humungously high, we scare off the vultures and thereby actually increase our chances of holding on to him.
Click to expand...

I can't see the kid staying around his whole career anyway. How often does that happen? Better to get a £50 million buy out in there now. If his career continues upwards we're protected. If it goes sideways or backwards, doesn't matter. Citeh or the Chavs will try and buy him at some point.
 
I hope we'll soon be winning and competing for things again, so it follows from that that I hope he'll find less and less need to go elsewhere to further his career. So let's tie him to a long term contract and then push on.
 
gkmacca said:
I hope we'll soon be winning and competing for things again, so it follows from that that I hope he'll find less and less need to go elsewhere to further his career. So let's tie him to a long term contract and then push on.
Click to expand...

I'm with you, only regular tilts at the title and playing in the CL will suffice. Do that, add the extra revenue from the expanded main stand and we're away. Success breeds success, money makes money.
 
Amazing how few people seem to grasp that a buyout clause is always for the player's protection, and never the club's.
 
Silver Sean said:
Well, if used correctly by the club a buy out clause of, for example, Messi at £300 million, mean that it's highly unlikely that even the oil lottery winners or the russian gangsters would go for it. That's how I see it.
£50 million + £1
Click to expand...

But they could just as well cash in on Messi at a 100 odd million if they feel they need cash.
By not having a clause, they could also deny any oil rich club from buying Messi should they offer 300m+1, or whatever the clause is.
I just don't see how it could be an advantage for any club.
 
If we keep this young squad together we are going to be unplayable in a couple of years. If Utd or the Arse had this many young players the media would be fawning all over them.
 
juniormember said:
But they could just as well cash in on Messi at a 100 odd million if they feel they need cash.
By not having a clause, they could also deny any oil rich club from buying Messi should they offer 300m+1, or whatever the clause is.
I just don't see how it could be an advantage for any club.
Click to expand...

This and peterhague's rather snotty post above both ignore the player's input into the matter. The choice isn't simply between keeping a player and letting him go. Under contract or not, he has the whip hand these days and, if he wants to go, there's bugger all point just waving the contract and saying "end of" - that way you'll end up with a pissed-off player who may or may not produce on the field and whose value will drop by the hour. A club has to take that into account when deciding what terms to offer him and in those circs.a high release clause may well be the lesser of two evils, just as it was with Suarez.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Modo
Kelleher not happy
2 3
Replies
71
Views
1K
jan
jan
Modo
  • Locked
Sepp kicking up a fuss
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
171
Views
5K
Brizzle
Brizzle
6cmRed
  • Locked
Liverpool Echo Arne Slot wanted me and Liverpool offered a contract - but I rejected it for one reason
Replies
0
Views
11
6cmRed
6cmRed
6cmRed
  • Locked
Liverpool Echo 'I've made it clear' - Caoimhin Kelleher breaks silence on Liverpool future after new goalkeeper signing
Replies
0
Views
10
6cmRed
6cmRed
6cmRed
  • Locked
Liverpool Echo Raheem Sterling has already made thoughts clear on Liverpool return
Replies
0
Views
11
6cmRed
6cmRed
Back
Top Bottom