OFFICIAL : Raheem Sterling joins Man City

HAHAHAHAHA okay

Red Alert wrote:HAHAHAHAHA okay

what part was funny. the part where I said benteke is younger. or the part I said we might not even sign benteke.

The part where Benteke has "sell on value" after spending 30m+ on a player thay would immnently flop for us

Red Alert wrote:The part where Benteke has "sell on value" after spending 30m+ on a player thay would immnently flop for us

us. who is us. you are not a Liverpool fan. and at 23yo he would have a better sell on value than a 30yo don't you think.

25m base fee. City can go piss off. I'd take 30m + Jovetic though.

I'll email them

I would like to think they would agree to the 30 mil plus Jovetic. I also think they'll demand Sepi's sister and Don't Call Me Madridista to admit he was the biggest Madridista since Di Stefano.

Jovetic so is not what we need. Eight PL goals in two seasons. Dzeko on a three-year contract would be perfect.

Not a penny less than £40m (and they can kiss those freaking add-ons). Still undecided on Dzeko or Jovetic.

https://twitter.com/JOE_co_uk/status/616611529929134084

I feel like a bad fan when I see new posts in this thread and find myself hoping it's rumours about Sterling being sold.

According to my mates at higher places, City are assessing other options atm with Sterling the last option.

Forget it, RG, City aren't interested in your flops, like Flamini, Podolski or Özil.

40m + Zabaleta and City can have Götze IMO

I'll talk to Arsene but no promises

I can see Sterling staying at Liverpool.

Neither Chelsea nor City want to pay the money for him.

Sterling won't stay.

Yeah we'll sell him for 40m pounds if we can't sell him by the end of the window for 50

can we change the title? it's not a war when only one club is trying to sign some guy

there are like 7 teams out of 8 in that poll who do not give a single fck about sterling

If i am City or any other club i would just wait until the last days of the transfer window to make a bid. Pool can not be so stupid to keep a player against his will.

Blue wrote:If i am City or any other club i would just wait until the last days of the transfer window to make a bid. Pool can not be so stupid to keep a player against his will.

We did Suarez and that turned out pretty well.

Don't call me James wrote:

Blue wrote:If i am City or any other club i would just wait until the last days of the transfer window to make a bid. Pool can not be so stupid to keep a player against his will.

We did Suarez and that turned out pretty well.

Bitey had a long term contract, Sterling doesn't. You keep him one year and his price goes down, and he'll want to leave even more after that.

So what? The owners aren't putting the £50m price tag on him just for extra money. First and foremost the idea of the tag is to scare away suitors as the club doesn't want to sell the player. I find it legitimately baffling that that key, simple concept seems beyond so many who want to comment on the situation and predict how it will turn out. The 50m figure isn't the red-lettered sale tag on Sterling, it is the necessary fee at which Liverpool would reluctantly consider selling him. The club are betting on/hoping that, like Suarez, if they can manage to keep Sterling this summer they can either A) get one last good year out of him (during which time they will save literally millions of pounds on his wages) and then move him on for a solid price (even one lower than this summer's would still be a fairly massive profit) or B) perform better and convince him to dump his agent and sign a new deal.

Selling this summer is not their intent, but an undesired possibility that they will consider if, and so far only if, their minimum valuation of £50m is met.

If we sign Benteke as well, any bid over 40 and his gone come deadline day.

If City want him now before we get Bentekkers, then yeah will cost 50.

I really hope he stays and Rodgers gets the sack...

RedOranje wrote:So what? The owners aren't putting the £50m price tag on him just for extra money. First and foremost the idea of the tag is to scare away suitors as the club doesn't want to sell the player. I find it legitimately baffling that that key, simple concept seems beyond so many who want to comment on the situation and predict how it will turn out. The 50m figure isn't the red-lettered sale tag on Sterling, it is the necessary fee at which Liverpool would reluctantly consider selling him. The club are betting on/hoping that, like Suarez, if they can manage to keep Sterling this summer they can either A) get one last good year out of him (during which time they will save literally millions of pounds on his wages) and then move him on for a solid price (even one lower than this summer's would still be a fairly massive profit) or B) perform better and convince him to dump his agent and sign a new deal.

Selling this summer is not their intent, but an undesired possibility that they will consider if, and so far only if, their minimum valuation of £50m is met.

Well if that's the case then it seems to be working so far. I just think keeping a player against his wishes most of the time is a bad idea for many reasons. It's a gamble which is more likely to backfire but if everything goes right (Sterling has a great season, dumps his agent and signs a new contract) then it'll be worth it.

It's good that the club atleast haven't taken this whole situation to heart and still want to convince him to stay.

Man i can't understand why would you want to keep a player that doesn't want to play for your club?

It is just baffling.

I don't care if it was Hazard or Mikel no player should be kept against their will.