Raheem Sterling (Liverpool -> Man City)

Isn't this part in particular inadvertently good though? The sooner you cut your losses the better, right? (Obviously, better scouting would help to prevent this from happening.)

Of course it is mate but it would make more sense to target the right players in the first place. 

Completely different scenario I know but I'm looking at getting another dog when my old one is no longer with us, we know we want another Border Collie so why would I get a Labrador.  It makes no F***ing sense.

Going back to Sterling, the first game that he he looked like he gave a sh#t was Spurs last year.Before that his mother,( His Mother for Christsake), was complaning he was'nt getting a chance.  He's blown more cold than hot since then, but we're all waiting for this magic to reappear which has'nt happened.
My question is.   Is he really worth 150k per week as he is, or are we waiting for it to happen?.

Of course it is mate but it would make more sense to target the right players in the first place. 

Completely different scenario I know but I'm looking at getting another dog when my old one is no longer with us, we know we want another Border Collie so why would I get a Labrador.  It makes no f**king sense.

But golden Labs are the best!

Yeah but Andy Carroll was basically free.

Not really, despite £50mill from Torres we still paid out £35mill with a sell on percentage and a contract. It wasn't free by any means mate. But that's for a different topic and day.

But golden Labs are the best!

We needed a greyhound and bought a Newfoundland.

I don't know how anyone can come out and defend our transfer record under FSG? They've done a lot of good things but getting transfers right more often then they get it wrong has not been one of them. Last Summer we spent £111 million gross/£36 million net on players and we've gone from title favourites to outsiders for getting a top four place and lost our best player in the process. There's no getting around it, we bought poorly. Neither Markovic, Balotelli, Lovren, Manquillo, Moreno or Lambert have made the cut this season yet we spent a collective £72 million on those players.

Hindsight may be twenty twenty but any fool could have pointed to Balotelli and said he didn't fit our system, to Lovren and say he's a form player, to Moreno and say he can't defend, to Lambert and say he was too old. So if we remove Markovic from the equation and put that down to a player just not working out, that still leaves £52 million and can anyone seriously say we couldn't have spent that £52 million better than we did? And if we had spent it better, would we have had such a poor start to the season? And if hadn't had such a poor start to the season, would Sterling have been as influential as he has this season? And if he hadn't been one of our more influential players, would he be demanding £150,000 a week from the club? Everything boils down to a poor record in the transfer market under our current owners.

Then why so aghast at splashing the cash on a bumper contract for Sterling? It seems you have as much confidence as I do in our transfer policy. Given our record over the past few years surely it is far less risky to pay the lad what they are asking than to stand firm, sell him and reinvest in the market?

If everyone can just for one moment put down their principles of "Greedy little get, he is not worth 150k or whatever price is being bandied about on a given day".

And answer the question. Do you believe the club will invest the money on a better player? On a player with a brighter future?

I don't

And answer the question. Do you believe the club will invest the money on a better player? On a player with a brighter future?

No there is absolutely no guarantee they will invest the money on a better player, but that does not mean we pay him whatever he wants either now does it 

If so and the reports that 180k would be rejected I guess the clubs next move would be North of 200k/week then.

If course all of this might be speculative bullshite anyway from both the club and Raheem's people who knows.

No there is absolutely no guarantee they will invest the money on a better player, but that does not mean we pay him whatever he wants either now does it 

If so and the reports that 180k would be rejected I guess the clubs next move would be North of 200k/week then.

If course all of this might be speculative bullshite anyway from both the club and Raheem's people who knows.

I can't imagine we're talking about 180k here, of course the truth is we don't know what figures have been offered, rejected or will be offered or rejected in the future. Maybe it isn't even about money and the lad simply isn't sold on the long term future of the club and has got his eye on somewhere else. I guess it will all come out in the wash come the summer. Maybe he and his people are out of line as so many posters have suggested in this thread BUT I can't help but look at the way FSG have handled some of their other contract business (ie. the complete mess they made of Gerrards new contract, the fact Henderson is going into the summer with only 12 months on his deal, the way they have drip fed info on the Sterling deal etc) and also be looking in their direction.

It's not about selling Raheem and bringing in a top proven player, it's about asking yourself if the next 20m 20 year old we sign to replace him will be as good as him? Because there is not a hope in hell we'll be signing a 30m established attacker demanding good wages. Just won't happen.

Stop getting nickers in a twist about the press & sky who just spin and lie about stuff to keep us the daft public reading and buying.

Its just stories, was said weeks ago, talks are on hold till summer, BR said its not a problem he is comfertable, sterling has at least 2 or 3 years on current contract. Summer is plenty time to sort new one out.

#chill

Feel Raheem should simply concentrate on helping the club, to qualify for the champion's League and winning the FA cup. Contract details can be sorted out at a later date, one way or another.

You missed the point entirely.

You missed my point entirely.

The point being:

I don't agree with his demands, lets put that straight. He is being greedy but he and his agent have an argument for him to be on the level of wage that they are asking. That has been the point I have been trying to get across.

Not too sure why you're shouting at me.

I don't know how anyone can come out and defend our transfer record under FSG? They've done a lot of good things but getting transfers right more often then they get it wrong has not been one of them. Last Summer we spent £111 million gross/£36 million net on players and we've gone from title favourites to outsiders for getting a top four place and lost our best player in the process. There's no getting around it, we bought poorly. Neither Markovic, Balotelli, Lovren, Manquillo, Moreno or Lambert have made the cut this season yet we spent a collective £72 million on those players.

Hindsight may be twenty twenty but any fool could have pointed to Balotelli and said he didn't fit our system, to Lovren and say he's a form player, to Moreno and say he can't defend, to Lambert and say he was too old. So if we remove Markovic from the equation and put that down to a player just not working out, that still leaves £52 million and can anyone seriously say we couldn't have spent that £52 million better than we did? And if we had spent it better, would we have had such a poor start to the season? And if hadn't had such a poor start to the season, would Sterling have been as influential as he has this season? And if he hadn't been one of our more influential players, would he be demanding £150,000 a week from the club? Everything boils down to a poor record in the transfer market under our current owners.

I defend FSG to a point.

FSG give the manager/scouts/the transfer committee a budget to work within (like any normal owners). FSG aren't responsible for who they bring in yet they get slaughtered on these boards for it.

The manager/scouts/transfer committee have their hands tied to some extent yes but are you telling me that we couldn't have signed better quality within the budget allowed? If Rafa was boss I'm certain he could work within FSG's 'policies' and sign some top class players. By the way I'm not saying Id prefer Rafa over Brendan, I'm just making the point that Rafa has an eye for a player for a reasonable fee and it seems that Brendan doesn't.

I defend FSG to a point.

FSG give the manager/scouts/the transfer committee a budget to work within (like any normal owners). FSG aren't responsible for who they bring in yet they get slaughtered on these boards for it.

The manager/scouts/transfer committee have their hands tied to some extent yes but are you telling me that we couldn't have signed better quality within the budget allowed? If Rafa was boss I'm certain he could work within FSG's 'policies' and sign some top class players. By the way I'm not saying Id prefer Rafa over Brendan, I'm just making the point that Rafa has an eye for a player for a reasonable fee and it seems that Brendan doesn't.

Our Transfer committee is here because the owners want it that way, if it's failing, it's up to the owners to take corrective action. But of course Money Ball is their baby, so the committee are only following instructions.

A statement from the club stating negotiations are on going & ignore all press speculation should & would quash all this talk but in my opinion the strategy adopted by FSG to allow this to drag is to show the player in a bad light.

Our Transfer committee is here because the owners want it that way, if it's failing, it's up to the owners to take corrective action. But of course Money Ball is their baby, so the committee are only following instructions.

Or just sack the committee member who suggested Lovren - he/she is obviously a bluenose!

I said it in the Brendan thread a couple of days ago but it is my gut feeling that Brendan wanted Lovren & Lallana based on their performances last season, and Mignolet who was flavour of the month at the time. Those three players don't particularly fall into the FSG policy everybody bangs on about on here.  Its no secret he wanted both Borini & Allen too. So thats 80m right there. All Brendan signings IMO.

The likes of Origi, Moreno and Markovic perhaps fall more into the FSG model so they may have been signed by the committee/the club on Brendans behalf.

We don't really know but I don't blame FSG for our woeful signings. They've invested over 200m in under three years and trust the manager/scouts/committee to make the best signings with the budget allowed. Its not their fault either the manager or some bluenose on the committee said I know why don't we sign f**king Dejan Lovren 

A statement from the club stating negotiations are on going & ignore all press speculation should & would quash all this talk but in my opinion the strategy adopted by FSG to allow this to drag is to show the player in a bad light.

Negotiations are on hold and will resume after the season is over.

I would have thought this was the only thing about the whole situation that wouldn't confuse anyone.

Things are clearly being leaked to the press, that should never be allowed to happen. Too many sheep are jumping on anti sterling bandwagon due to this sh*t. As fans this shouldn't be any if our business anyway.

Things are clearly being leaked to the press, that should never be allowed to happen. Too many sheep are jumping on anti sterling bandwagon due to this sh*t. As fans this shouldn't be any if our business anyway.

I think there are some media outlets looking at this situation and have free will to produce whatever they want knowing they can get away with it.

Then why so aghast at splashing the cash on a bumper contract for Sterling? It seems you have as much confidence as I do in our transfer policy. Given our record over the past few years surely it is far less risky to pay the lad what they are asking than to stand firm, sell him and reinvest in the market?

If everyone can just for one moment put down their principles of "Greedy little get, he is not worth 150k or whatever price is being bandied about on a given day".

And answer the question. Do you believe the club will invest the money on a better player? On a player with a brighter future?

I don't

Your question is irrelevant because it assumes the situation has only two choices. Either use the money to attract top talent to the club or reward Sterling's greed. What do you think the club could do with £2.6 million a year? By my calculations (and feel free to correct me) but that's more than the club makes on a single match day. How about letting all Juniors in for free? How about letting all Disabled fans in for free? How about reducing the ticket price by 3%? All these choices are better than rewarding a player with one good season under his belt.

Your question is irrelevant because it assumes the situation has only two choices. Either use the money to attract top talent to the club or reward Sterling's greed. What do you think the club could do with £2.6 million a year? By my calculations (and feel free to correct me) but that's more than the club makes on a single match day. How about letting all Juniors in for free? How about letting all Disabled fans in for free? How about reducing the ticket price by 3%? All these choices are better than rewarding a player with one good season under his belt.

All of those choices will not happen if we don't pay Raheem that money.

All of those choices will not happen if we don't pay Raheem that money.

None of those choices will happen regardless. You know that as well as I do.

None of those choices will happen regardless. You know that as well as I do.

Why say it then?