Raheem Sterling

[Madejski]

City were desperate for English home grown players. So go out and buy the one with the highest potential who could be there for 10+ years. Not sure why they are being seen to be the biggest losers in this.

£49m gets you 1.3 Andy Carroll's these days on the English market, and Sterling will easily be better for City than Caroll and Liverpool.

 

[Stevencc]

£49m = 1.4 Alexis Sanchez's.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The only way I can see Sterling not being a success at City is if either the media backlash gets to him, or City go out and buy better players in his position, which would be an odd move after having spent £49m on him. His potential his genuinely huge. He has has good vision, passing, dribbling and fantastic pace. You have to imagine that all of his focus now will be on improving his finishing. Henry couldn't hit the broad side of a barn when he joined Arsenal, but the training ground work paid off immensely. Imagine if Sterling could get his finishing to even half the level of Henry? He'd be an absolute beast. Worthy investment from City IMO. There aren't many players of the same age that effect games to the extent that Sterling can.

 

[Ligue 1 fan]

The only bad thing from Liverpool's point of view is that they now have £49M to spend.

 

[Madejski]

£49m = 1.4 Alexis Sanchez's.

Which won't help City's need for English/home grown players..

In the (overpriced) English players market, £49m for Sterling is a fair price.

 

[Stevencc]

£49m + £200k a week is never a fair price to pay for potential, English or not. The wages are probably more shocking than the transfer fee itself.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

But it doesn't really mean anything does it? City can splash pretty much whatever cash they like now, and they have a fuckton of it.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The only bad thing from Liverpool's point of view is that they now have £49M to spend.

And everyone knows it.

 

[Stevencc]

But it doesn't really mean anything does it? City can splash pretty much whatever cash they like now, and they have a fuckton of it.

I would say the ridiculous wages City are willing to offer a 20 year old could have a potentially negative effect actually. In two or three seasons time when 23 year old Sterling is asked to sign a new contract - how much will he be looking for then? Perhaps he will actually be world class by that point, he should certainly have come on a long way - that will have to be reflected in his next wage. That's without going into the fact that other City players know how much he is being offered may begin to reassess how happy they are with their own contracts.

The fee itself is ridiculous but yeah, it doesn't mean much to City.

 

[Madejski]

Who knows if the £200k a week is accurate though?

I can't see them paying Sterling as much per week as they are paying Aguero, who is supposed to also be on £200k a week.

 

[JimJams]

I think the wage is crazy and given that he said it wasn't about the money surely City could have offered him a lot less and he'd still have been getting a pay rise. However the idea that this is a problem when negotiating new contracts would only apply if City weren't offering pretty much the best wages around. It's not like he can say I'm not happy with £200k a week pay me more or this other club will, cos they won't. Citys biggest problem with paying the massive wages is the reluctance of some fringe players to look for another club or be sold on because most prospective buyers don't offer the wages that they get at City. You wouldn't think that'd be an issue in this transfer down the line though, unless he gets an injury and turns to shit.
If they want someone else for the quota then I'd go for Stones.

 

[Stevencc]

Who knows if the £200k a week is accurate though?

I can't see them paying Sterling as much per week as they are paying Aguero, who is supposed to also be on £200k a week.

True, we don't know for sure but it was believed he was on something like £30k at Liverpool and he turned down an increase to £100k to set this move in motion. Time will tell if £200k is accurate but he has definitely more than quadrupled his wages, probably increased them by 5 or 6 times.

 

[kopite]

I think this works out well for all parties.

We get a huge fee for a player who doesn't want to be there. Sterling gets away from the club and gets paid the wages he wants and club competing for trophies. City get a player who if they develop properly can be something really special.

Time will tell how successful and how long he will be there though.

 

[silkyman]

I think this works out well for all parties.

We get a huge fee for a player who doesn't want to be there. Sterling gets away from the club and gets paid the wages he wants and club competing for trophies. City get a player who if they develop properly can be something really special.

Time will tell how successful and how long he will be there though.

Is the right answer.

With the wages, what usually happens is that the press invents a figure and it becomes accepted 'truth' regardless of facts.

One of the ways City have been meeting (or 'getting around') FFP has been with lower wages and higher bonuses. This doesn't seem to fit in with that.

 

[JimJams]

With the wages, what usually happens is that the press invents a figure and it becomes accepted 'truth' regardless of facts.

What also usually happens is fans of said club that pay the extortionate wages always try to play down the figure and make out anyone who listens to the reported ones are deluded while offering little to no evidence that the wages are well short of the sums reported in the press regardless of 'fahcts'.

 

[allouso]

The only way I can see Sterling not being a success at City is if either the media backlash gets to him, or City go out and buy better players in his position, which would be an odd move after having spent £49m on him. His potential his genuinely huge. He has has good vision, passing, dribbling and fantastic pace. You have to imagine that all of his focus now will be on improving his finishing. Henry couldn't hit the broad side of a barn when he joined Arsenal, but the training ground work paid off immensely. Imagine if Sterling could get his finishing to even half the level of Henry? He'd be an absolute beast. Worthy investment from City IMO. There aren't many players of the same age that effect games to the extent that Sterling can.

Don't think he's a good passer to be honest.

He's at his best when he's running at the opposition, and he can beat a man. I think only Hazard had more successful dribbles last season in England (and there aren't many in Europe that dribble better than Hazard, if any). Sterling is also quite strong for his size, and he manages to draw a lot of fouls from opposing defenders.

His biggest weakness is his rash decision making in the final third. He's a very poor finisher, just seems to overthink it too much, and he generally just makes the wrong decision when he has a chance to shoot or play someone through. Another glaring weakness which people rarely talk about is his shooting technique. It was infuriating to watch last season when he'd get into a great position and come up with an effort that my dead grandma could best. It was really odd that a player with so much strength and good technique struggled to shoot.

However, these are all things that can be improved. I remember even Ronaldo supposedly had no end product at one point, and look how that turned out. The key for Sterling will be for him to get games, and i'm sure he will at City next season anyway cause he's better than their current wingers, but he will also need a proper manager to look after him and bring out the best in him. Henry had Wenger, Ronaldo had Ferguson. Is Pellegrini that man? I doubt he'll even be here after next year. That could be a crucial factor.

On another note, it's true that City have paid a lot but they are not paying for the player that he is now, but rather to the player he will be in a few years.

Meanwhile, i can't wait till we get Benteke. Only Liverpool would go all out to buy a player that thrives on crosses when they have one of the lowest crossing percentages in the league. Yay!

 

[Jarv]

LOL Liverpool have utterly done city for SWP mark 2.

 

[allouso]

One more thing we aren't really focusing on; we have just strengthened an opponent. In my mind we are looking to break into the top 4, and looking at how they've struggled to improve their team this season and with Kompany/Toure dropping a few levels City were the most likely to drop out of the top 4 in my opinion. So while it all looks great now with the huge fee i'm not so sure it's good new for us.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

the only thing i find a big shame is that Agent is going to get his big payday.......he is everything that is wrong with Agents in the game and why they get such a bad vibe, he's clearly put the wellbeing of the player behind his own personal financial gain (said Agent can try and prove it otherwise but its how it has came across)

Means I think City have him for at best 2 years because he'll no doubt suddenly take a big strop the moment his agent gets in his ear its time to move for a payday..............reminds me abit of the Anelka strops.

the positive for City of course is that for him to have his strop to make afew million he's got to at least bother trying to play well so some other mug takes him

 

[Mr. Scruff]

Its probably not far off the deal we made for Rooney counting inflation.

No way have Liverpool got the better of this. He is young , english and will be world class. 40m after QPRs cut doesnt make up for the years of quality they could have had or the even bigger fee they would have got if he fullfulled his promise.

City still need more. The need a CB as much as us and I dont think Fernando is close to being good enough either.

 

[Pagnell]

No way have Liverpool got the better of this.

He had 24 months on his contract and wanted out, and was starting to become a serious problem with his shitty attitude and childish antics, not to mention his odious agent. Given those circumstances we have done very well to get £50m (or £40m after the sell-on fee). It's what we said all along we valued him at and it's what we got. Have City got the better side of the deal? Perhaps, but only if you take into account they have an unlimited tank of spunk to jizz up the wall given that, unlike the vast majority of clubs they're competing with, they make little to no effort to link their operating income and expenditure. To them, £50 spent will have far less effect than £50m income to us if we spend it well. Although it's a big if, I agree. Also, there is no guarantee he will fulfil his potential, especially if he's not handled well as Allouso alluded to above. The guy clearly has an attitude that needs careful handling and I'm not sure he will get that at City.

But I'm disappointed. I wanted to keep him as, from a fans perspective, when all said and done it makes no difference if we got £30m or £50m. What matters to me is what happens on the pitch, and he was too good a player to sell to a team who might be a direct 4th place rival next season. But he didn't want to be at the club, and I have always said I don't want a player at the club who doesn't want to be there. So I'm sad but it's a decent deal for all parties involved.

 

[Mr. Scruff]

He had 24 months on his contract and wanted out, and was starting to become a serious problem with his shitty attitude and childish antics, not to mention his odious agent. Given those circumstances we have done very well to get £50m (or £40m after the sell-on fee). It's what we said all along we valued him at and it's what we got. Have City got the better side of the deal? Perhaps, but only if you take into account they have an unlimited tank of spunk to jizz up the wall given that, unlike the vast majority of clubs they're competing with, they make little to no effort to link their operating income and expenditure. To them, £50 spent will have far less effect than £50m income to us if we spend it well. Although it's a bit if, I agree. Also, there is no guarantee he will fulfil his potential, especially if he's not handled well as Allouso alluded to above. The guy clearly has an attitude that needs careful handling and I'm not sure he will get that at City.

But I'm disappointed. I wanted to keep him as, from a fans perspective, when all said and done it makes no difference to if we got £30m or £50m. What matters to me is what happens on the pitch, and he was too good a player to sell to a team who might be a direct 4th place rival next season. But he didn't want to be at the club, and I have always said I don't want a player at the club who doesn't want to be there. So I'm sad but it's a decent deal for all parties involved.

46 not 50 I thought.

Anyway dont disagree with anything there. Just dont agree city have been taken for mugs.

Its a good deal for them and had Sterling not wanted out, one that Liverpool wouldnt have agreed to.

 

[Pagnell]

All the reports I've read say the deal is £49m (BBC, Sky etc) but I admit I've rounded up a tiny bit.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

I know this is as such an attack on big clubs so sorry on that, but I always thought devious big clubs usually try and not get it all 'up front' when they have a huge sell on clause listed to a smaller club.

I thought they usually tried to get the fee in other ways to rip off the smaller club as they only got a percentage of the original fee.

so if it were £50 million, but Liverpool only asked for £20 million up front it would mean them only paying QPR £4 million and then they arrange the rest.

I thought that was the usual way to rip off the smaller club with these things or have rules changed it?

 

[silkyman]

Sell ons don't work like that. Otherwise City would have signed him on a free transfer with a £50m instalment payable immediately. And all clubs would do it to avoid sell-ons. Any bonus payment and instalment payment is also subject to the sell-on fee. I remember Macc getting a couple of grand once when a player they had sold was sold on. I think it might have been when Jon Parkin went to Cardiff from Preston and Preston had to give Stoke a cut because of the sell on, and that triggered some of the sell on from Stoke to Hull and they had to pay a bit to Macc. It was something like 20% of 20% of 20%.

 

[silkyman]

You can mess them about with player plus cash deals though. Just claim that you valued the player at much less than you do.

 

[mistermagic]

I know this is as such an attack on big clubs so sorry on that, but I always thought devious big clubs usually try and not get it all 'up front' when they have a huge sell on clause listed to a smaller club.

I thought they usually tried to get the fee in other ways to rip off the smaller club as they only got a percentage of the original fee.

so if it were £50 million, but Liverpool only asked for £20 million up front it would mean them only paying QPR £4 million and then they arrange the rest.

I thought that was the usual way to rip off the smaller club with these things or have rules changed it?

I think FL clubs are treated better than you think they are.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

I wasn't just getting at the big clubs as in top flight, same rip off happens championship to L2, L1/L2 to conf, conf prem to lower league etc, etc

I just thought the bigger clubs were fiddling their way around sell on clauses.

 

[Christian Slater]

One more thing we aren't really focusing on; we have just strengthened an opponent. In my mind we are looking to break into the top 4, and looking at how they've struggled to improve their team this season and with Kompany/Toure dropping a few levels City were the most likely to drop out of the top 4 in my opinion. So while it all looks great now with the huge fee i'm not so sure it's good new for us.

This. The fee is great but the negative is Liverpool, for a second time, have sold one of their best players to a rival. Sterling and his agent acted unprofessionally, but then again so did Liverpool. I think this ordeal and its result could have a lasting impact on the club.

 

[merseyboyred]

City have got a bargain.