Forget about the money...If we are not going to buy Bale because he is injury prone then why should we keep hold of Sturridge... Some here in the post match tread were saying we should have kept DS.
I think you are confusing what people are saying because it's not about next season with Sturridge. I am one of the ones who was in favour of him staying for the rest of the season, because despite injuries he's a better goal threat than Ings and Solanke IMO, and he has more goals than them both combined this season. The fact that Ings wasn't on the bench and Solanke didn't get on the pitch when we were searching for a goal in the final says it all on their current ability and how they are rated by Klopp, where as if Sturridge had been on the bench, I have no doubts Klopp would have put him on because he's a proven goal scorer despite all the injuries.
BUT, this doesn't mean myself, or anyone else wants him to stay in the summer, I think it's time for him to go but we should have just stuck with him for the remainder of the season and probably loaned out Ings instead who has been plagued just as badly by injuries, we in no way benefited sending Sturridge out on loan and nor did he. If anything we hampered our chances further of getting a half decent fee for him.
But, to compare his situation to Bale's is ridiculous, it is completely about the money because if we paid 80mill+ for a player, 200/300k a week in wages, I would expect a damn lot more than an average of 37 games out of a 55-60 game season.
Haha I really hope not, he's as over hyped as LLoris IMO.
Logged
