Worst Sterling transfer ever

glued

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.

It's not a great deal for Liverpool unless the money is reinvested correctly. Selling your best player is never good business.

POKERKING

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.

Its simple, City need a homegrown player just one who can add something to the squad, but he HAS to add something and cant just be a bench filler, we have unlimited funds, Sterling is the best available.

Also that unproven player made his England debut at 17, has better stats than ronaldo, bale and hazard at there age and was englands standout player at the world cup aged 19, was Liverpools main threat for a chunk of last season(pre contract dispute), is arguably the best young player in the world(actually a fact according to Rodgers) Not quite unproven....

TheCitizen

POKERKING wrote: »

Its simple, City need a homegrown player just one who can add something to the squad, but he HAS to add something and cant just be a bench filler, we have unlimited funds, Sterling is the best available.

Also that unproven player made his England debut at 17, has better stats than ronaldo, bale and hazard at there age and was englands standout player at the world cup aged 19, was Liverpools main threat for a chunk of last season(pre contract dispute), is arguably the best young player in the world(actually a fact according to Rodgers) Not quite unproven....

You're 1st paragraph is accurate. You're 2nd paragraph is wishful thinking.

POKERKING

TheCitizen wrote: »

You're 1st paragraph is accurate. You're 2nd paragraph is wishful thinking.

Which bit in particular?

pmasterson95

His potential wasn't what got him this move or priced him. It was the homegrown status. He'll be just another Richards, Rodwell, Sinclair goes to City thinking they are great. Crawl out a few years later much wealthier and maybe a few medals handed to them but **** all actually achieved.

pmasterson95

pmasterson95 wrote: »

His potential wasn't what got him this move or priced him. It was the homegrown status. He'll be just another Richards, Rodwell, Sinclair goes to City thinking they are great. Crawl out a few years later much wealthier and maybe a few medals handed to them but **** all actually achieved.

If potential wasn't important why didn't city just sign Lambert?

Probably would have saved 47m.

They obviously know nothing about football and way less than the average punter

POKERKING

pmasterson95 wrote: »

His potential wasn't what got him this move or priced him. It was the homegrown status. He'll be just another Richards, Rodwell, Sinclair goes to City thinking they are great. Crawl out a few years later much wealthier and maybe a few medals handed to them but **** all actually achieved.

Sinclair you are right about, Rodwell would of got games for city if he had of been fit....he rarely was.

And Richards was pivotal when we won the league and fa cup so thats just wrong.

If what you are saying is correct why not buy a 1million pound HG player? Put simply you are wrong, he was bought because he can make a difference to the team and will play and contribute and more than likely have some medals to show for it.

TheCitizen

Your 2nd paragraph is a mixture of wishful thinking and inaccuracies.

POKERKING wrote: »

Also that unproven player made his England debut at 17,

Doesn't mean much these days bar grossly adding to his price tag.

POKERKING wrote: »

has better stats than ronaldo, bale and hazard at there age

Does he, if he goes on to have anything like the careers those have had I'll be surprised.

POKERKING wrote: »

and was englands standout player at the world cup aged 19, England's standout player

In a World cup where the only point they got was a draw with Costa Rica and got bombed out in the first Stage - outstanding. He was subbed off in the crucial game v Uruguay.

POKERKING wrote: »

was Liverpools main threat for a chunk of last season(pre contract dispute),

In a distinctly average season for that club - again outstanding.

POKERKING wrote: »

is arguably the best young player in the world(actually a fact according to Rodgers)

I doubt it and Rodgers would say that wouldn't he.

POKERKING wrote: »

Not quite unproven....

You could be right but I reckon you're more likely to be wrong about what he may go on to achieve. The point is for 50 million quid in sterling - even going by today's EPL transfer market and all considerations - you really should be getting more of a sure thing.

death1234567

CSF wrote: »

Those idiots are everywhere on the internet unfortunately.

It's easy to be brave when you are sitting at your computer screen and have the veil of anonymity to protect you. It's when people get offended by the things posted on Twitbook or friendface that baffles me. XYZ got death threats on the tweet machine, oh wait it turns out it was a 12 year old on his mother's iPad and not a North Korean led axis of evil carefully hatching an assassination attempt.

kevthegaff

Man City get to buy a HG player they want
Liverpool get 40 mil
qpr get 9-10
Sterling gets 200k a week
Ward gets 5 mill
Everyones Happy...

Godge

kevthegaff wrote: »

Man City get to buy a HG player they want
Liverpool get 40 mil
qpr get 9-10
Sterling gets 200k a week
Ward gets 5 mill
Everyones Happy...

Chelsea, Arsenal and Utd see Man City overpaying for a player which reduces their bargaining power in the marketplace, see Liverpool lose another player once he comes good proving once again that Liverpool are not among the top places to go, meaning they are much happier.

POKERKING

TheCitizen wrote: »

Your 2nd paragraph is a mixture of wishful thinking and inaccuracies.



Doesn't mean much these days bar grossly adding to his price tag.

Does he, if he goes on to have anything like the careers those have had I'll be surprised.



In a World cup where the only point they got was a draw with Costa Rica and got bombed out in the first Stage - outstanding. He was subbed off in the crucial game v Uruguay.



In a distinctly average season for that club - again outstanding.



I doubt it and Rodgers would say that wouldn't he.



You could be right but I reckon you're more likely to be wrong about what he may go on to achieve. The point is for 50 million quid in sterling - even going by today's EPL transfer market and all considerations - you really should be getting more of a sure thing.

Wishful thinking and inaccuracies?

made his England debut at 17-Fact

has better stats than ronaldo, bale and hazard at there age-Fact i made no reference to there future career

Englands standout player at the world cup aged 19- i guess you could debate it, i thought this was pretty widely accepted that he was. Who was better? Just because England were **** doesnt mean my point is wrong.

Liverpools main threat for a chunk of last season(pre contract dispute)-slightly debatable between him and coutinho but pre dispute(march) he was at worse the second biggest threat but imo the main one.

arguably the best young player in the world(actually a fact according to Rodgers)- This is what Rodgers described him as, i think its fair enough to say that you could argue he the best young player in the world, nothing wishful thinking or inaccurate about that.

My point was hes not quite as unproven as people suggest. And the other main point is the price paid for Sterling(£44m plus add ons) is the going rate considering all the variables. Not that it really matters to me, at the end of the day im a fan not an accountant i just care about seeing great football and winning trophies.

Nib

Don't forget character, he has lots of character.

Character.

JohnDaniels

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

I was going to do up a thread with a post loosely around this to try and get a bit of debate going. I might try write something longer in the next few days but in short I'm not sure what I am supporting anymore. Torres to Chelsea, RVP to United, Lampard to City, Fabregas to Chelsea, Sterling to City. When I grew up watching football it just felt like the top clubs had an identity. United had that amazing era of the class of 92, Liverpool had Carra/Gerrard and even when Chelsea were becoming a force it was driven by the likes of Lampard/Terry.

All of those teams are starting to look very souless. Maybe I'm looking at things through rose tinted glasses, maybe the passion that burned within for following a silly game of kick ball is demisihing but it feels at least to me that football is in danger of jumping the shark.