OFFICIAL : Raheem Sterling joins Man City

M99 wrote:http://www.goallegacy.net/t23652-the-raheem-sterling-appreciation-thread

Real Kandahar wrote:i have him for FM 2012, and he's incredibly fast... and there i was thinking that the "new" players FM 2012 produced were fake

RK, the original RG.

M99 wrote:http://www.goallegacy.net/t23652-the-raheem-sterling-appreciation-thread

RED wrote:

Messiah \"Aggerswagger" wrote:

RED wrote:Great player, I'm a big fan of his already. What I like most about him is his dribbling. The way he can dribble with speed in tight spaces...his composure and decision making, for such a young guy, is extremely impressive.

He's the real deal. Will be a star in a couple of years.

The thing is, will LFC be able to hang onto him?.........

When have we let go of a WC prospect before???

dunno. But I'm just saying, if LFC continues to miss out on CL football by the time he makes it big, you never know...

If City, Chelsea or one of the Spanish top 2 make a bid for him, he may wanna leave.

Don't call me James wrote:Maybe to the Spanish 2, but he's fallen in love with the Kop, I don't see him moving to another team in England.

Spoiler:

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/oh-snap.gif

The Franchise wrote:Decent?

Liverpool probably have no more than 3 better players in their whole squad to be honest.

If he is only decent now, what are the rest?

Yeah and those 3 better players (Coutinho, Sturridge, Firmino) would start over him, meaning he's at best a bench player.

B-Mac wrote:

Find my quote where I said he would turn into a backstabbing *bleep* like Owen.

Sterling great when on-form, but also notably inconsistent. Over the last two seasons he's had about two non-consecutive half-seasons of form. Let's not forget that he was very nearly sent out on loan in January of 2014 due to a completely anonymous first half of the season and only remained with the club due to Rodgers' faith in him at that point. Nor should we ignore that his form dropped off precipitously mid-season last year and was granted a mid-season vacation by Rodgers to recuperate, after which he briefly showed form again before notably losing form as soon as uncertainty rose about his position.


Sterling is a talented young player, but he's still a young player. That carries with it both positives and negatives, though in his case both seem to be amplified. Depending on which set of traits he develops he could become a fantastic player or simply another "could-have-been."

As it stands though, he's neither consistent enough nor mentally tough enough to build a side around, which is what a player commanding £200k in ages needs to be for most clubs (including Liverpool). Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your view) City have the type of financial power backing them that those wages are NOT so hugely impactful.


Liverpool have lost a talent and further established their image as a stepping-stone club but have honestly sold a player well above his CURRENT value.

ManCity have massively overspent on fee, wages, and undoubtedly agent's fee but have landed themselves a very prominent young talent who could become a fantastic player (but also one who appears to have some issues off the pitch and perhaps on it).

Sterling has gotten his big money move to a club that can realistically expect to compete for major honors this coming season and every one beyond (for the foreseeable future) but has clearly damaged his reputation and heaped huge pressure upon himself. City won't give him the same preferential and protective treatment Liverpool have simply because they can replace him much more easily that Liverpool.




Ultimately, none of the parties involved won in this debacle and it ended up a bit like a fight between apes... there's been a whole lot of noise and animated pointing and all involved have come out smelling a bit of feces.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only possible "winner" here is QPR.

Don't call me James wrote:

The Franchise wrote:Decent?

Liverpool probably have no more than 3 better players in their whole squad to be honest.

If he is only decent now, what are the rest?

Yeah and those 3 better players (Coutinho, Sturridge, Firmino) would start over him, meaning he's at best a bench player.

Well thats one way to say it, I wouldnt agree. But in any case, thats not important...just because those 3 are (in your opinion) better, that doesnt mean he is merely "decent".

If any of those players played for Barca, they wouldnt start either. But they are still all better than decent players.

Alright he's not decent or okay, he's very good, but compared to what you would expect out of a 50m pound/71.3m euro player he's nowhere near that standard. Overall great piece of business by Liverpool.

As for Liverpool not having 3 better players than him, there's a reason Liverpool have only finished ahead of Tottenham once since 2008-09.

No one has denied they have overpaid though.

Tbh i don't really concern myself with that anyway, at the end of the day these clubs have bottomless pits of cash as long as they win trophies nobody is really going to care.

RedOranje wrote:Sterling great when on-form, but also notably inconsistent. Over the last two seasons he's had about two non-consecutive half-seasons of form. Let's not forget that he was very nearly sent out on loan in January of 2014 due to a completely anonymous first half of the season and only remained with the club due to Rodgers' faith in him at that point. Nor should we ignore that his form dropped off precipitously mid-season last year and was granted a mid-season vacation by Rodgers to recuperate, after which he briefly showed form again before notably losing form as soon as uncertainty rose about his position.


Sterling is a talented young player, but he's still a young player. That carries with it both positives and negatives, though in his case both seem to be amplified. Depending on which set of traits he develops he could become a fantastic player or simply another "could-have-been."

As it stands though, he's neither consistent enough nor mentally tough enough to build a side around, which is what a player commanding £200k in ages needs to be for most clubs (including Liverpool). Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your view) City have the type of financial power backing them that those wages are NOT so hugely impactful.


Liverpool have lost a talent and further established their image as a stepping-stone club but have honestly sold a player well above his CURRENT value.

ManCity have massively overspent on fee, wages, and undoubtedly agent's fee but have landed themselves a very prominent young talent who could become a fantastic player (but also one who appears to have some issues off the pitch and perhaps on it).

Sterling has gotten his big money move to a club that can realistically expect to compete for major honors this coming season and every one beyond (for the foreseeable future) but has clearly damaged his reputation and heaped huge pressure upon himself. City won't give him the same preferential and protective treatment Liverpool have simply because they can replace him much more easily that Liverpool.




Ultimately, none of the parties involved won in this debacle and it ended up a bit like a fight between apes... there's been a whole lot of noise and animated pointing and all involved have come out smelling a bit of feces.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only possible "winner" here is QPR.

+1 for an objective post on the matter

RedOranje wrote:Sterling great when on-form, but also notably inconsistent.  Over the last two seasons he's had about two non-consecutive half-seasons of form.  Let's not forget that he was very nearly sent out on loan in January of 2014 due to a completely anonymous first half of the season and only remained with the club due to Rodgers' faith in him at that point.  Nor should we ignore that his form dropped off precipitously mid-season last year and was granted a mid-season vacation by Rodgers to recuperate, after which he briefly showed form again before notably losing form as soon as uncertainty rose about his position.


Sterling is a talented young player, but he's still a young player.  That carries with it both positives and negatives, though in his case both seem to be amplified.  Depending on which set of traits he develops he could become a fantastic player or simply another "could-have-been."  

As it stands though, he's neither consistent enough nor mentally tough enough to build a side around, which is what a player commanding £200k in ages needs to be for most clubs (including Liverpool).  Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your view) City have the type of financial power backing them that those wages are NOT so hugely impactful.


Liverpool have lost a talent and further established their image as a stepping-stone club but have honestly sold a player well above his CURRENT value.

ManCity have massively overspent on fee, wages, and undoubtedly agent's fee but have landed themselves a very prominent young talent who could become a fantastic player (but also one who appears to have some issues off the pitch and perhaps on it).

Sterling has gotten his big money move to a club that can realistically expect to compete for major honors this coming season and every one beyond (for the foreseeable future) but has clearly damaged his reputation and heaped huge pressure upon himself.  City won't give him the same preferential and protective treatment Liverpool have simply because they can replace him much more easily that Liverpool.




Ultimately, none of the parties involved won in this debacle and it ended up a bit like a fight between apes... there's been a whole lot of noise and animated pointing and all involved have come out smelling a bit of feces.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only possible "winner" here is QPR.

200k in ages, that's quite ancient tbh.

Inb4

RealGunner wrote:let us not discriminate others for bad splling please

Why are we even talking like Sterling was bought for 50m to play like a 50m player next season alone?

He was bought for that price because English 20 year olds with his talents are very rare. City need more English players and they paid that money because they think they could have a player for 6-10 years (or who knows how long really at his age) could give them high quality performances.

If the boy is as talented as Rodgers told us, then 50m isnt relatively little if he plays like it for a decade.

Obviously I am not comparing him to Buffon, but when Buffon was signed everyone was losing their marbles that he cost 35m....decade of performances for Juve later, it seems like nothing.

Because speaking as you do places a ridiculous amount of value in "potential" which is both subjective to a degree and entirely hypothetical. It is entirely possible, if not LIKELY that he will not fulfill his full potential and the fee is, at this stage of development, more of a "bet" than an "investment." It is absolutely worth considering and discussing the fee with relation to both potential and current level as both play a direct role in his value and play a factor in defining the player in question.

You say its ridiculos, I dont think it is at all.

Yes, it is a gamble..like signing any player is. Dont get a reward without risk. Many examples of high risk paying off and many where it doesnt.

Noone said you cant consider his current level in his fee, but to talk about City as if they signed him JUST to be a 50m level player right away is silly and weird. Which indeed has been the case so I read.

And considering the fee purely on potential (as you appear to be arguing) is equally as silly and weird.

Besides, how many here actually think City are going to give Sterling time to develop and grow? They'll be expecting him to start and perform in the 2015/16 season and he won't be getting the same type of extra chances and protective treatment that he was granted at Liverpool (as I've previously explained but was, perhaps predictably, ignored). City ARE buying Sterling as a "right now" player as much as they might be paying for potential. That should not be ignored and directly plays into the valuation of the player and the expectation.

No, this is not what I am arguing...the first line of my post was "Why are we even talking like Sterling was bought for 50m to play like a 50m player next season alone?"

I dont even think City will give him time to grow, I think he will play alot this season and maybe next one...but if he isnt REALLY good in that time, they will replace him with someone else.

But the point I was making was, City didnt buy him "today" because they think he will be a 50m level player "today". They bought him for what might happen and what might happen could make 50m not such a big deal. Thats all.

And yet odds do not support that, nor does past evidence. As such your line of reasoning and basis of argument fail to effectively stand up on their own unless you're willing to make certain out-of-the-ordinary assumptions. Ultimately the fee is extraordinary because, for it to even be marginally worthwhile, several extraordinary factors have to align. As a basis for analysis, that suggests that the fee IS a big deal as it is so extraordinary.

RedOranje wrote:Sterling great when on-form, but also notably inconsistent.  Over the last two seasons he's had about two non-consecutive half-seasons of form.  Let's not forget that he was very nearly sent out on loan in January of 2014 due to a completely anonymous first half of the season and only remained with the club due to Rodgers' faith in him at that point.  Nor should we ignore that his form dropped off precipitously mid-season last year and was granted a mid-season vacation by Rodgers to recuperate, after which he briefly showed form again before notably losing form as soon as uncertainty rose about his position.


Sterling is a talented young player, but he's still a young player.  That carries with it both positives and negatives, though in his case both seem to be amplified.  Depending on which set of traits he develops he could become a fantastic player or simply another "could-have-been."  

As it stands though, he's neither consistent enough nor mentally tough enough to build a side around, which is what a player commanding £200k in ages needs to be for most clubs (including Liverpool).  Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your view) City have the type of financial power backing them that those wages are NOT so hugely impactful.


Liverpool have lost a talent and further established their image as a stepping-stone club but have honestly sold a player well above his CURRENT value.

ManCity have massively overspent on fee, wages, and undoubtedly agent's fee but have landed themselves a very prominent young talent who could become a fantastic player (but also one who appears to have some issues off the pitch and perhaps on it).

Sterling has gotten his big money move to a club that can realistically expect to compete for major honors this coming season and every one beyond (for the foreseeable future) but has clearly damaged his reputation and heaped huge pressure upon himself.  City won't give him the same preferential and protective treatment Liverpool have simply because they can replace him much more easily that Liverpool.




Ultimately, none of the parties involved won in this debacle and it ended up a bit like a fight between apes... there's been a whole lot of noise and animated pointing and all involved have come out smelling a bit of feces.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only possible "winner" here is QPR.

if he gets his head down and really works hard the real winner here could be jordan ibe. Having sterling at the club was holding him back. Now he has the chance to really push on. And im not saying this because he is gone but I allways thought ibe could turn out a better player.

What wages is he on?

Because you can throw around 50m all you want but the wages in the long term are the fee that people seem to forget about all too often (though Liverpool obviously haven't).

I think it is a good deal for Liverpool given their circumstances, as for City, I think we'll wait and see. However, given their circumstances, I can see where they are able to take on the kind of investment Sterling is and if he does fill out his potential then City will have made a good deal for themselves as well.

CBarca wrote:What wages is he on?

Because you can throw around 50m all you want but the wages in the long term are the fee that people seem to forget about all too often (though Liverpool obviously haven't).

I think it is a good deal for Liverpool given their circumstances, as for City, I think we'll wait and see. However, given their circumstances, I can see where they are able to take on the kind of investment Sterling is and if he does fill out his potential then City will have made a good deal for themselves as well.

£200k per week.

I've not seen anything from Ibe to convince me he has a higher overall ceiling than Sterling. In fact, while I like what I've seen of Ibe I think he's decidedly less versatile and overall equipped to be than Sterling. He lacks the sight that Sterling has displayed (sporadically) and control, though seems to be a bit more clinical and perhaps more physically imposing. Whereas Sterling has *the potential* to be a top quality attacker that can play in several positions I think Ibe will eventually have to focus on a specific role (one in the line of Sturridge despite initially being a winger) and even then probably won't reach the overall level of Sterling.

That said, the vast, vast majority of talented young players never reach their full potential and I honestly don't expect that Ibe will either.

RedOranje wrote:I've not seen anything from Ibe to convince me he has a higher overall ceiling than Sterling. In fact, while I like what I've seen of Ibe I think he's decidedly less versatile and overall equipped to be than Sterling. He lacks the sight that Sterling has displayed (sporadically) and control, though seems to be a bit more clinical and perhaps more physically imposing. Whereas Sterling has *the potential* to be a top quality attacker that can play in several positions I think Ibe will eventually have to focus on a specific role (one in the line of Sturridge despite initially being a winger) and even then probably won't reach the overall level of Sterling.

That said, the vast, vast majority of talented young players never reach their full potential and I honestly don't expect that Ibe will either.

ibe is about 2 years behind sterling at the moment. But I think he will surprise a few people if he gets plenty of games this season. I defiantly think he will have a better season than markovic.