Worst Sterling transfer ever

Harry Palmr

Pffffft! Internet warriors.

pmasterson95

Classy

CSF

That's not a Liverpool thing though. Those idiots are everywhere on the internet unfortunately.

gimli2112

I've lived a sheltered life, those comments are shocking.

Talib Fiasco

CSF wrote: »

That's not a Liverpool thing though. Those idiots are everywhere on the internet unfortunately.

Every club has them knobheads. Only 1% or so of the fan base, but they're obviously going to be highlighted, and rightly so, disgraceful.

Cookiemunster

rossie1977 wrote: »

bbc state £31 million http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/32730813 http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/33114102

man utd paid 30 million euro for anderson back in 2007, finding it hard to believe nearly a decade later they paid less for depay http://web3.cmvm.pt/sdi2004/emitentes/docs/FR13758.pdf

Well BBC got this one wrong. Everyone else has it as €30m/£22m.

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-05-07/psv-confirm-deal-to-sell-depay-to-man-united/
http://www.espnfc.com/story/2438138/man-united-agree-memphis-depay-deal

Arghus

Compared to 35 million for Carroll or 50 million for a past-it Torres, I think this fee should surprise no-one. Surely every transfer is bought on the basis of potential, sometimes a player has a proven track record, but it still comes down to the potential job they can do for their new team. Sterling has lots of potential, more than anyone in the English game right now. If you couple that with all the different reasons for an economic inflation of the price - Home grown rules, his contract situation and City's financial resources - then it's not hard to see why he's gone for this much of an amount. If he had gone for less I'd have been shocked. People who are shocked at the fee, I dunno, I wonder how much attention you've been paying towards the inflated prices for young English players for the last several years. I was astounded that City were potentially in for Fabian Delph for less than 10 million. I'm not saying he's worth that, but that seems to be the market-rate.

People comparing Sterling to Walcott are miles off the mark. I'm an Arsenal fan and I appreciate certain things Walcott brings - Ridiculous pace and semi-decent finishing, but he's a profoundly limited footballer. He can't really hold a candle to Sterling, who has more to offer at 20. than Walcott does at 26.

Knex*

OP just wanted to get his pun out there.

Knex*

Also, as a Liverpool fan (are we allowed say that again?), I feel we can't say much about Sterling for 50m when we've spent what, 30m on Firmino?

Who knows which transfer stands the test of time better, tbh.

Oranage2

Absolutely shocking and sickening tweets.

But anyway, Yes the price is excessive. But I think Sterling will do well at city, not 50 million well but good enough that he doesn't go down as a flop. The English tax and the tv have sent transfers astronomically high but when players like Shaw are 30 million then you know the market is all over the place.

He'll most likely improve on his goal and assist tally last season which was still pretty decent. I don't see how some Liverpool fans rate Ibe as having more potential, there's a million miles between them in terms of ability.

Besides shooting I think Sterling tops walcott in every other department but goals win games.

Professional Griefer

Those tweets, so classy.

Ranchu

Liverpool have done well with the fee but I get the feeling it will be justified. He's done well under quite a bit of pressure for his age. It might ease up for him a bit with better players around him at City. The media are going to be on his back nonstop though.

Billy86

thebaz wrote: »

Is Sterling comparable to Zidane or Ronaldo ?
Those 2 are greats , Sterling is just potential, with a serious attitude problem

This is the modern transfer market for ya, just like Man Utd paid so much for a fullback last season. There is English player tax, the fact that prices have skyrocketed as well (a lot seem to think the average is not much different than a decade ago, which is wrong), and age. Sterling is 20, so City will be able to get a good 12 years out of him, which would come to about 4mn per season. Then factor in selling between kinda-sorta competitive rivals (though City are above Liverpool quite easily, of course) coupled with City's bottomless pockets, and it's not that big of a deal really.

Corholio

Ranchu wrote: »

Liverpool have done well with the fee but I get the feeling it will be justified. He's done well under quite a bit of pressure for his age. It might ease up for him a bit with better players around him at City. The media are going to be on his back nonstop though.

Hardly helped himself with that though now has he.

Ranchu

Corholio wrote: »

Hardly helped himself with that though now has he.

No, not at all. If he has any sense he'll stay well clear of them for a while.

pablo128

Owen Hargreaves @17 milion sterling was a pretty sh1t signing.

Professional Griefer

pablo128 wrote: »

Owen Hargreaves @17 milion sterling was a pretty sh1t signing.

Worth for the 07/08 season, absolutely worth.

niallo27

Some of the tweets are just harmless. Why were they included with the really nasty ones.

eagle eye

Just on the 'he is as likely to be the next Theo Walcott' comments. I think Walcott was a much better prospect at 20 than Sterling is.

jonnny68

United sign a world class world cup winning midfielder for a fraction of the price City pay for a jumped up prima donna.

Enough said!!!

CSF

jonnny68 wrote: »

United sign a world class world cup winning midfielder for a fraction of the price City pay for a jumped up prima donna.

Enough said!!!

Congrats on being that guy.

niallo27

jonnny68 wrote: »

United sign a world class world cup winning midfielder for a fraction of the price City pay for a jumped up prima donna.

Enough said!!!

Bit of an age difference though in fairness.

City can afford it. It's just bitter lemons to scoff at them because they spent big tbh. Off with them. With the FFP not as strict they can spend more freely.

Utd paid almost £60m for a player who Sterling out-performed last season.

CSF

CSF wrote: »

That's not a Liverpool thing though. Those idiots are everywhere on the internet unfortunately.

I know, would take two mins to find any fanbase writing similar sick stuff. Even chanting it. But hey, we all know the crack.

Cookiemunster

rarnes1 wrote: »

City can afford it. It's just bitter lemons to scoff at them because they spent big tbh. Off with them. With the FFP not as strict they can spend more freely.

Utd paid almost £60m for a player who Sterling out-performed last season.

ADM 2014/15 27 apps 1645 mins 3 goals 10 assists
Sterling 2014/15 34 apps 3053 mins 7 goals 7 assists

Yeah Sterling really out performed Di Maria last season :rolleyes:

Cookiemunster

Cookiemunster wrote: »

ADM 2014/15 27 apps 1645 mins 3 goals 10 assists
Sterling 2014/15 34 apps 3053 mins 7 goals 7 assists

Yeah Sterling really out performed Di Maria last season :rolleyes:

He did though Even if it was slight.

You'd expect different as one is overrated, playing for a poor team, Suarez carried him through his best season, while the other is world class, one of the best around.

It's easy to sneer at City but what club doesn't get it wrong with transfers.

blueser

The OP doesn't seem to be limiting this to inter-PL transfers. That being the case; Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls, I give you.....David Luiz. £50m for a defender who can't defend. Absolutely laughable. In that WC semi final against the Germans, he was like a rabbit in the headlights. If that is the benchmark, then Sterling is a bargain. And, as already nominated on here, Andy Carroll. £35m for him? As Quint said in Jaws; "Jesus H Christ".

blueser

blueser wrote: »

The OP doesn't seem to be limiting this to inter-PL transfers. That being the case; Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls, I give you.....David Luiz. £50m for a defender who can't defend. Absolutely laughable. In that WC semi final against the Germans, he was like a rabbit in the headlights. If that is the benchmark, then Sterling is a bargain. And, as already nominated on here, Andy Carroll. £35m for him? As Quint said in Jaws; "Jesus H Christ".

I'm convinced there was something fishy about that Luiz transfer!

niallo27

Soldado was pretty much a waste of money.

Aquilani was Liverpool's most expensive mess I'd say

niallo27

rarnes1 wrote: »

Aquilani was Liverpool's most expensive mess I'd say

It was but my god did we hear about it so much. You would think no manager ever made a mistake before.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

It was but my god did we hear about it so much. You would think no manager ever made a mistake before.

Probably because it dragged on for 4 years!

No thread about worst transfers is valid without mentioning Steve Daley, Wolves to Man City for an eye watering 1.4 mill in 1979, the then record.

Gbear

rarnes1 wrote: »

He did though Even if it was slight.

You'd expect different as one is overrated, playing for a poor team, Suarez carried him through his best season, while the other is world class, one of the best around.

It's easy to sneer at City but what club doesn't get it wrong with transfers.

Well, clearly they do. (Edit: whoops... misread your post - thought you said they don't get it wrong with transfers...)

They've an awful squad for the money they've paid. A lot of ludicrously overpriced players that aren't too bad on their own, but taken as a whole, really haven't left City in a great position.

They're lucky that FFP is a joke. They would've had a very tough time basically building a whole new squad with it in place.



£50m isn't the market rate for Sterling, but you don't pay the market rate for a player whose club doesn't want to sell them.

Sterling is, approximately, the best player in the world for his age.
Maybe it's because of the likes of Messi and Neymar that people think he's overrated, but very few players show the stats that Sterling does at that age.

And despite having come across as a twat (or at least a person who's happy to let his agent make him look like a twat), his heady is very much screwed on on the pitch.
He's a great worker, is quite tactically mature for his age, is quite versatile and obviously has loads of raw talent.

His weak foot is farcically bad and he can generally **** the bed in front of goal a bit - very much a winger at this point, rather than a genuine forward - but he's plenty of time to iron that out.

Aenaes

jonnny68 wrote: »

United sign a world class world cup winning midfielder for a fraction of the price City pay for a jumped up prima donna.

Enough said!!!

Yeah, stupid City. Why didn't they go out and buy an English world class world cup winning midfielder?

Bloody hell..

klose

niallo27 wrote: »

Soldado was pretty much a waste of money.

Still amazed how badly he adapted to the premier league, thought he was a cert to do well in england.

PhlegmyMoses

I'd kind of understand people's argument about Sterling being overpriced if it wasn't City buying him but Spurs or Southampton etc. 30m would be acceptable to most, but 30m or 50m, who gives a ****? Their owners are worth trillions. Overpaying by 20m is chump change. If he flops, buy another. If he lives up to his potential, buy a second one.

Winston Payne

Deleted User wrote: »

No thread about worst transfers is valid without mentioning Steve Daley, Wolves to Man City for an eye watering 1.4 mill in 1979, the then record.

Garry Birtles is always a signing my dad looks back and shudders at. Manchester United bought him from Nottingham Forest for £1.25M in the autumn of 1980. Didn't score a goal in his first season, was sent back to forest in '82. The pressure got to him pretty quickly and he patently didn't work out.

thebaz

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I who gives a ****? Their owners are worth trillions. Overpaying by 20m is chump change.

and ther was me thinking it was the game of the people - 20m does matter , and if it doesn't - my dwindling interest in the top end of professional football will fade even further

PhlegmyMoses

thebaz wrote: »

and ther was me thinking it was the game of the people - 20m does matter , and if it doesn't - my dwindling interest in the top end of professional football will fade even further

That's just naive. 20m means less to the City owners than 20 euro does to me and you. Sheikh Mansour alone is worth about 40bn and his family including all their assets etc run into the trillions. Money at that level is almost impossible to really fathom.

~Rebel~

The fee i think is fair enough - he's probably more realistically a 35m player, but with the added fact that there aren't too many players around who would improve City, and are homegrown, a premium is added on.

I still don't believe the 200k wage rumors though. Nonsensical figure they would have had no reason to offer him. Thats what Suarez is on at Barca for instance. I believe only Aguero is paid more than that at City. Maybe Yaya - all the reports for him are between 160 and 200.

I just doubt they're flat out giving Raheem 200k - only way I could see that is if its incentive based and he can hit that if they win everything, and he gets 20 goals or something.

I'm guessing he's on more like 120 to 160 at the absolute most.

rossie1977

eagle eye wrote: »

Just on the 'he is as likely to be the next Theo Walcott' comments. I think Walcott was a much better prospect at 20 than Sterling is.

Even though he had less goals and less assists with arsenal at the same age...

Walcott had 14 goals in 106 games for arsenal at 20
Sterling has 23 goals in 129 games with 19 assists

Walcott took 5 seasons at arsenal to score as many goals as sterling has in 3

Billy86

jonnny68 wrote: »

United sign a world class world cup winning midfielder for a fraction of the price City pay for a jumped up prima donna.

Enough said!!!

As a United fan, I am delighted with thst transfer, and am happier than I have been with any window of ours in probably a decade.

But Schweinsteiger is 31 (before the season starts), and Sterling is over a decade younger. That's where the price difference lies (on top of English tax and selling to a rival).

Billy86

thebaz wrote: »

and ther was me thinking it was the game of the people - 20m does matter , and if it doesn't - my dwindling interest in the top end of professional football will fade even further

I'm sorry, but it's not 1993 anymore. The game became about money first and foremost a long, long time ago.

Billy86

rossie1977 wrote: »

Even though he had less goals and less assists with arsenal at the same age...

Walcott had 14 goals in 106 games for arsenal at 20
Sterling has 23 goals in 129 games with 19 assists

Walcott took 5 seasons at arsenal to score as many goals as sterling has in 3

Agreed. Walcott was a speed merchant with decent finishing and composure, kind of similar to Javier Hernandez but a bit better outside the box and not as dangerous inside it. He also had the added bonus of being a younger at Arsenal in the 2000s, which instantly made a player world class for a disturbing amount of fans and lazy pundits. Sterling, while not proven to be the star he could become yet, is on a completely different level to Walcott of the same age.

thebaz

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but it's not 1993 anymore. The game became about money first and foremost a long, long time ago.

I'm sorry too - a plaything for the Super rich - where 20 million means nothing in world of recession - and supposed to be a game of the people

NIMAN

I simply can't understand Man City is all of this.

They have unlimited wealth and if they wanted to could probably buy any player in the world. Messi excluded maybe.

Who at the club honestly think spending £50m on a totally unproven, trouble maker was a good idea?

Liverpool must be delighted in all of this. They got a great deal, and got rid of an average player and a potential trouble maker. Great business.

fullstop

thebaz wrote: »

I'm sorry too - a plaything for the Super rich - where 20 million means nothing in world of recession - and supposed to be a game of the people

Well it's not. How can players earning hundreds of thousands of pounds per week have anything in common with you or I?

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

I simply can't understand Man City is all of this.

They have unlimited wealth and if they wanted to could probably buy any player in the world. Messi excluded maybe.

Who at the club honestly think spending £50m on a totally unproven, trouble maker was a good idea?

Liverpool must be delighted in all of this. They got a great deal, and got rid of an average player and a potential trouble maker. Great business.

Everyone agrees the fee is inflated.

However, list me English players around Sterling's age that are better. Dying to see these above average English youngsters you must know.

NIMAN

I agree, there is a dearth of English talent around.

Where did I say there were better English players at his age?