Summer Transfer Window 2015

I know that was one of the reason, that we are not in immediate need to sell Sterling like you guys so we should relax a bit !! So if you are not able to extend Walcott, that is your Problem and so anyways we should be after him without selling Sterling

Umm, well, it's not that we're looking to sell. It's media BS anyway. Nor do I think Sterling is worth Theo + 20 million. That's 45m pounds I would rate him at 30 tops. More so, with Ox and Gnarby offering what Sterling can offer, even if we lose Theo. And then there is Welbeck.

Heck, they offer more than Theo minus the finishing. So if Walcott isn't extending, we kind of don't have a problem with cashing in while we can

There's a reason why Theo is not starting despite being fit - the only thing he brings to the table is his finishing and movement. Sterling has great movement, but the less we talk about his finishing.....


I didn't read earlier pages in this thread, Arty - thanks for repeating your point of view

@Sri

No I wouldn't want Theo + cash for Sterling. I rate Theo but thing is if lose Sterling, we're gonna need a marquee signing and Theo isn't that.

It would also drastically decrease Sterling's cash fee that we can receive if we sold him outright.

I agree with your view completely.. Theo finds himself in a rather awkward position indeed..

However, I disagree on the valuation part.. Sterling, with 2 years left on his contract, is not worth Theo (with 1 year left) plus 20 million - I know those are bollock figures cooked up by Daily Star but still.. Not for me at least..

Ideally, Sterling realizes what he has at Liverpool is good for him at his age - regular playing time, star status and love from the faithful. No amount of money can make up for that. Obviously, I don't buy the 'It's not about money but about CL' BS.

I highly doubt Wenger would ever do a business like Sterling for Theo + cash. I just cant see it happening As you already pointed out Ox and Gnabry already competing with other players to get a place in first team, so that doesnt make so much sense to sign Sterling. Also, I am sure if Wenger wants to spend 40m, he will spend on someone like Lacazette or some other player.

I cant remember if he's ever done a player+cash deal to be honest! (of course, not talking about players moving the other way on loan or something)

Anyway, was an opportunity for me to drop by the Pool section and catch up with some of you lads and get an inkling of your feelings towards Sterling after he rejected the last deal..
I think there is no animosity or vitriol towards him.. at least not yet, anyway..

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/32255980

Liverpool winger Raheem Sterling was heckled by a supporter during the launch of the club's new kit.

The 20-year-old England international told BBC Sport he had rejected a £100,000-a-week contract from the Reds, saying that he would discuss his future at the end of the season.

Sterling was at an event on Friday to promote Liverpool's kit for the 2015-16 campaign.

One supporter shouted: "Make sure we see you in it next season."

Would take more than 20m for me to be happy with the deal for several reasons:
1) That would suggest we value Walcott at £30m despite his injury issues.
2) We would need more than £20m to find a third, more resilient option as a legitimate goal threat for the times in the season when neither Sturridge nor Walcott are fit... a very real possibility given their injury experiences.
3) We'd be strengthening an immediate domestic rival, if not immediately then long-term.


Ultimately, I think those same issues are the reason such a deal could never happen, except at a much higher cash addition and/or in the final year of Sterling's deal... which is still another year off. The owners have made very clear their opposition to strengthening direct domestic rivals and Walcott's injury concerns will lower LFC's valuation of him considerably, regardless of talent level. IF Sterling leaves this summer, and that is an absolutely HUGE "if," it will be for a foreign league and/or a ridiculous sum. £50m seems to be the bare minimum we'd be looking for from any club and I can all but guarantee that any "inter-PL" deal would be subject to a substantially increased rate.

Don't agree with your evaluation in terms of numbers, but agree with your sentiment and rationale.

as I had said million times before, we HAVE TO keep Sterling. We just can not afford to lose Sterling. We should also not sell him right away in this summer, regardless of the offer(at least around 50m), unless he tells the club that he really wants to leave the club and play somewhere else. The only possibilities are Chelsea and ManCity from PL who could give a try to snatch Sterling.

Having Sterling, Coutinho and Henderson at the club + another good striker who can lead the line in absence of Sturridge or play with Sturridge when he is available, this scenario in the next season with good midfielder, might push us for more than top 4. And who knows Sterling might have a change of heart during the next season, if we start performing. So in many ways it is worth the risk to keep Sterling although we receive a good offer from other foreign club (which I highly doubt that any club would want to match our evaluation for Sterling)

Those aren't really my "numbers;" they come from reports on the contract situation in The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, and The Liverpool Echo. Basically all of those reports suggest that Liverpool won't even consider a bid of less than £50m for him this summer regardless of whether he signs a new deal. Putting that figure up against the Sterling/Walcott swap report thus suggest a valuation of Walcott at a MINIMUM of £30m, without even considering the up-charge necessary to make the owners break their established stance of not strengthening direct domestic rivals.

The only thing the club HAVE TO do is remain a viable and sustainable business. It would be infinitely more difficult (i.e. impossible) to recover and win trophies if the club were to go into administration than it would were the club to sell a player who may (or may not) become a top, top talent. Half a decade should not be long enough to forget what happens when a club adopts an unsustainable wage/transfer strategy (among other things).

We all know how reliable media reports are RedO.

My point is that I consider 50m to be far too much for Sterling - my valuation based on my perception of his games over the last few months, his age, his experience, years left on his contract and his (current/potential) skills. I think for all that, I would pay 25-30 million for him. That implies Walcott is only worth 5-10 million, which is complete bollocks even with only 1 year left on his contract.

Again, I am not disputing the source of your numbers. My point is, I don't agree with the valuation of Sterling as being worth 50 million. Whether you made that valuation, or one of those media outlets did, or Liverpool did - doesn't matter to me.

I started the discussion about a hypothetical sale to know what fans here think of the deal, just as I explained what I think of it over the last few posts. That only loosely hinges on what we suppose our respective clubs will/can do. Quite simply, we are looking at the values from buyer and seller point of view. As the seller, you are completely justified in overvaluing, just as I am within mine to undervalue as a buyer. The sale only happens when the buyer and seller agree on a price. Anyway, hope that clarified my previous post.

The sources cited are the most regularly reliable and generally provide sound information. Regardless of your personally valuation, the journalists behind those reports tend to produce fairly accurate information and that, alongside the club's stance under current ownership, suggests that that valuation is a reasonable basis for discussions. The £50m figure isn't MEANT to be an accurate valuation of his current level or performances, that's the point. It's a price intended to scare off anyone other than a club willing to pay well over the odds, thus allowing us to (theoretically) turn around and find a comparable option at a lower price or buy a better option without a net loss. If no buyer comes in, then that's not an issue but the intended goal all along, and the club will not be in the least upset but rather happy. If a buyer does come in, then at least we ensure that we can (again, theoretically) active strengthen the side anyway.

My feeling on the deal, my interpretation of whether its A) acceptable and B) viable, HAS to be grounded on current events and facts and stances. Such things are always relative and must thus have some basic structure or stance to be compared to. As such the numbers quotes, the club's previous actions, all of that, MUST be within my consideration for me to able to provide a response to your question. I included them within my answer simply to make my reasoning as transparent and straightforward as possible. It's not meant to debate the point, but to provide evidence and basis to my personal opinion on and reading of the potential outcomes of the situation.

RedOranje wrote:The only thing the club HAVE TO do is remain a viable and sustainable business. It would be infinitely more difficult (i.e. impossible) to recover and win trophies if the club were to go into administration than it would were the club to sell a player who may (or may not) become a top, top talent. Half a decade should not be long enough to forget what happens when a club adopts an unsustainable wage/transfer strategy (among other things).

Well I cant disagree with what you said but I would certainly say that in this case related to Sterling, it is a far fetched idea that such a deal would push us into administration. But setting a trend to either bend down to a player by offering higher wages or selling them just because of some other reasons, can be equally far more unhealthy for the club in long term. As you say, we need stability off the pitch, it is equally true that we need stability on the pitch also.

On other note, I really think no club would offer such an insane amount of 50m for Sterling

HEIL MEIN REDS wrote:

RedOranje wrote:The only thing the club HAVE TO do is remain a viable and sustainable business.  It would be infinitely more difficult (i.e. impossible) to recover and win trophies if the club were to go into administration than it would were the club to sell a player who may (or may not) become a top, top talent.  Half a decade should not be long enough to forget what happens when a club adopts an unsustainable wage/transfer strategy (among other things).

Well I cant disagree with what you said but I would certainly say that in this case related to Sterling, it is a far fetched idea that such a deal would push us into administration. But setting a trend to either bend down to a player by offering higher wages or selling them just because of some other reasons, can be equally far more unhealthy for the club in long term. As you say, we need stability off the pitch, it is equally true that we need stability on the pitch also.

On other note, I really think no club would offer such an insane amount of 50m for Sterling

I'm not sure I understand this part, to be honest.  It sounds a bit like you are agreeing with me.  If we're not going to bend to the player's (Sterling's) wage demands then really we have to face the fact that he or his agent will be looking elsewhere for that big paycheck, and our only real play is to set an huge price tag on him and hope noone comes in willing to pay it... which is what the club is doing.


Also, and this is purely guess work/estimation on my part, but wouldn't paying an inconsistent 20yo without even a single full season of regular starts/production more than any other player in the squad, and at least 50% more than any player bar 2 or 3, create a very real threat of instability " on the pitch" (insomuch as that refers to the players/squad)? Seems a precarious practice that could easily upset key portions of the team.

Look, I don't want Sterling to be sold. I'd be perfectly fine with paying him £100k/week or so, even though that's probably 3* the highest wage we've ever offered a player under the age of 25 before. But just caving to his demands, paying him £150k (minimum) per week makes no sense on any level as far as I can see it.

The only other option then is to wait him out and hope that voices within the club, or a lack of solidifying interest from with out, will convince him to sign the compromise deal offered. That means putting a crazy price tag on him to scare off suitors (who would be facing about a £100 MILLION investment between transfer fee and wage commitment).

There is no way Sterling would go to an English club below 30m, He's the biggest thing in English football and the future of it. Plus its an inter-English league transfer.

We couldnt see Arsenal pay that kind of fee for Suarez, Let alone a 19 year old with attitude problems Sterling.

Also probably United is the team above us that Sterling would start consistently for and he aint going there, So his options abroad seem more realistic but English players hate playing abroad because the English league is so much more appealing and is basically home.

So basically i expect him to stay and sign a 100k contract, Then expect him to ask for 150k in 2 years and then we'll sell him.

Also we dont need Walcott, We should nurture Ibe who could have a higher ceiling than Sterling.

I don't believe Arsenal (or Arsene, to be precise) is even remotely interested in Raheem.

Whatever players they have on 100K salary are well establish ones. They will not pay 100K (let alone 150K) wage to such a young player.

Secondly, I don't believe they want a player who has thrown such tantrum over wage/contract.

Raheem hasn't really "thrown a tantrum" or displayed a poor attitude though, has he?

I mean, he's rejected a pretty extraordinary offer and he made the unwise decision to give an interview over the situation (without club consent) but he's continued to work just as hard as always in training and on the pitch. There's no indication his attitude with the squad has changed at all or that he's caused any trouble or unrest.

At the moment its simply a wage dispute and contract negotiations that have been put on hold until the season's over. If there's bad blood at all it's between the agent and the club, so far there hasn't been any indication of issues with the player.

Let's not go assigning blame or decrying the player... it will only make him less likely to sign a new deal and/or more likely to look for a move.

So we can say he's been advised poorly. Yeah attitude shouldn't be used, But im quite sure it will have caused some unrest. Every ex player and player is talking about it. Basically not signing a contract is the first step when you want to leave a club.

I really have this stupid feeling that he wants to leave and asking for silly money is a way of making it happen.

That said, Raheem could sign a new deal and we'll be happy for another 2 years.

RedOranje wrote:The sources cited are the most regularly reliable and generally provide sound information.  Regardless of your personally valuation, the journalists behind those reports tend to produce fairly accurate information and that, alongside the club's stance under current ownership, suggests that that valuation is a reasonable basis for discussions.  The £50m figure isn't MEANT to be an accurate valuation of his current level or performances, that's the point.  It's a price intended to scare off anyone other than a club willing to pay well over the odds, thus allowing us to (theoretically) turn around and find a comparable option at a lower price or buy a better option without a net loss.  If no buyer comes in, then that's not an issue but the intended goal all along, and the club will not be in the least upset but rather happy.  If a buyer does come in, then at least we ensure that we can (again, theoretically) active strengthen the side anyway.

My feeling on the deal, my interpretation of whether its A) acceptable and B) viable, HAS to be grounded on current events and facts and stances.  Such things are always relative and must thus have some basic structure or stance to be compared to.  As such the numbers quotes, the club's previous actions, all of that, MUST be within my consideration for me to able to provide a response to your question.  I included them within my answer simply to make my reasoning as transparent and straightforward as possible.  It's not meant to debate the point, but to provide evidence and basis to my personal opinion on and reading of the potential outcomes of the situation.

Thank you for the transparency, puts your earlier posts in a context that I can understand and accept.

Nishy wrote:There is no way Sterling would go to an English club below 30m, He's the biggest thing in English football and the future of it. Plus its an inter-English league transfer.

We couldnt see Arsenal pay that kind of fee for Suarez, Let alone a 19 year old with attitude problems Sterling.

Also probably United is the team above us that Sterling would start consistently for and he aint going there, So his options abroad seem more realistic but English players hate playing abroad because the English league is so much more appealing and is basically home.

So basically i expect him to stay and sign a 100k contract, Then expect him to ask for 150k in 2 years and then we'll sell him.

Also we dont need Walcott, We should nurture Ibe who could have a higher ceiling than Sterling.

This was part of my basis of argument - that we only valued Suarez at 40m (+1 ), leave alone Sterling. Although it's a stretch for me, calling him the biggest thing in English football etc etc

iftikhar wrote:I don't believe Arsenal (or Arsene, to be precise) is even remotely interested in Raheem.

Whatever players they have on 100K salary are well establish ones. They will not pay 100K (let alone 150K) wage to such a young player.

Secondly, I don't believe they want a player who has thrown such tantrum over wage/contract.

I agree with the first part - we don't need a 20 year old who does pretty much what Ox or Gnabry (can) do, and definitely not at club record wages! Nobody in our 'British Core' was at 100k p/w, although Ramsey earned a better contract after that stellar season.

Wrt players and wages - we've seen (probably) much worse over the years. Ashley Cole left because we refused to offer him 5k p/w more.

RedOranje wrote:Raheem hasn't really "thrown a tantrum" or displayed a poor attitude though, has he?

I mean, he's rejected a pretty extraordinary offer and he made the unwise decision to give an interview over the situation (without club consent) but he's continued to work just as hard as always in training and on the pitch.  There's no indication his attitude with the squad has changed at all or that he's caused any trouble or unrest.  

At the moment its simply a wage dispute and contract negotiations that have been put on hold until the season's over.  If there's bad blood at all it's between the agent and the club, so far there hasn't been any indication of issues with the player.  

Let's not go assigning blame or decrying the player... it will only make him less likely to sign a new deal and/or more likely to look for a move.

I was hoping this would be the general sentiment. After the game last weekend, my best friend (who has been a Liverpool fan at least as long as I have been an Arsenal fan, if not more) was pretty critical of the situation. I was wondering if this was just post-game knee-jerk or the general feeling among a wider fan base.

Like I said earlier, I hope Sterling realises what he has right now is the best for him (at least at his age) and stays for (a few more) years at Anfield.

Nishy wrote:There is no way Sterling would go to an English club below 30m, He's the biggest thing in English football and the future of it. Plus its an inter-English league transfer.

We couldnt see Arsenal pay that kind of fee for Suarez, Let alone a 19 year old with attitude problems Sterling.

Also probably United is the team above us that Sterling would start consistently for and he aint going there, So his options abroad seem more realistic but English players hate playing abroad because the English league is so much more appealing and is basically home.

So basically i expect him to stay and sign a 100k contract, Then expect him to ask for 150k in 2 years and then we'll sell him.

Also we dont need Walcott, We should nurture Ibe who could have a higher ceiling than Sterling.

I otherwise agree with this, but I believe Sterling would start consistently for Man City. The only reason Navas is playing as much as he is is that City don't have much competition on the wings. Silva is much better centrally, Nasri is the epitome of hot-&-cold player and Milner is OK, but nothing amazing. And Milner could be on the way out anyway.

Arsenal and Chelsea don't need Sterling and I hope I won't see another player move between Man United and us in my life time, but it would be a no-brainer for City to sign Sterling if he's just available.

He basically is according to the English media. It is a stretch to say it but you could derive a very similar phrase to this from all the articles in all the newspapers every week either before or after the English NT matches.

By English football, I meant their savior for the NT competitions not the league.

I say go for Walcott and keep Sterling... and get Milner in too. With Henderson signing a new contract.

And then buy world class foreign talent.

Is that too hard to ask for?

It's not hard to ask for, but probably too much to wish for