Raheem Sterling

[Parm]

Sure, I accept that. I'm more responding to the idea he's not good enough to warrant 70k than suggesting money is all it will take to keep him. As I say, he's someone we clearly need to keep if we're to avoid a drop in the quality we can put on the pitch.

potentially we are going to have him as a fundamental part of our team for the next 10-15 yrs (fitness/form permitting) the lad has so much talent and is going to get better (especially I hope with scoring goals) We shouldn't be lowballing our top talent, especially when comparatively our opponents/rivals will be more than willing to pay Sterling what he wants.

[Vermilion]

**** it,

I'd offer him 50p a week and tell him it's a privilege to be playing for this club, they should all be playing for free. The greedy cunts have enough money as it is.

It's irrelevant as he'll be off next year anyway so we may as well go in with a 50p offer.

No point changing club policy now.

[Vermilion]

Maybe even a gooner

Hurts to say it, but it's dawned on me how far ahead of us they really are, let alone the likes of Citeh and Chavski!

Huge Stadium in place, able to attract top players if they wish to pay for them, and i think they will be more lilely to do so nowadays, Location that helps not hinders.

Whether they push on under Wenger or another manager, truth is; everything is in place now.

No wonder their fans are frustrated, they have a right to be, where as we have a long road to go down before we even reach where they are now, unless we get very very very lucky and sign some players with potential that actually reach that potential, and we'd need a few, or we get a manager that's just destined to be successful, can do no wrong.

[Slinky Skills]

No point changing club policy now.

[Rich]

Players hold the power, better players hold more power.

Do you think the biggest clubs in the league wouldn't offer Sterling £100k a week? By all means negotiate with his agents but I don't think Chelsea, United or City would think twice about it. Arsenal would probably be involved in a protracted affair (a la Walcott) but they'd stump up the cash.

I suspect that we will reach agreement and it'll be for a six-figure weekly sum. It might be morally wrong for a 20 year old to earn that amount, but this is the Premier League we're talking about.

[Robbie-9-Fowler]

Isn't Shaw on something like £120,000 a week at United?

Its a shocking amount but he could get similar if he left.

[Doc_Piptorious]

Players hold the power, better players hold more power.

Do you think the biggest clubs in the league wouldn't offer Sterling £100k a week? By all means negotiate with his agents but I don't think Chelsea, United or City would think twice about it. Arsenal would probably be involved in a protracted affair (a la Walcott) but they'd stump up the cash.

I suspect that we will reach agreement and it'll be for a six-figure weekly sum. It might be morally wrong for a 20 year old to earn that amount, but this is the Premier League we're talking about.

To be honest it is not a case of whether or not it is morally wrong for me, but rather that I associate weekly wages of £100k or upwards to be for the type of player who is a difference maker more often than not when he plays a game.

Sterling is very talented and may become that level of player, but he is not there yet.

If we give him £100k at 20, what happens when he turns 22 or 23? Will he be back knocking at the door looking for a double his money deal?


What happens the next time we have a talented young player who looks like he might become even better but who had not actually reached that level yet. Will those players all point to Sterling getting £100k a week at 20 and say that they want the same or they are out?


Part of me gets the logic of paying more to keep a player, but part of me is worried that it will see players of lesser talent then move up a wage bracket when in negotiation with us.

[McDermotX]

True, but he was subject to a huge transfer as well, so it does go hand in hand.
I certainly think some mugs will give him similar. Sterling should be relatively happy with his development, but not too ****ing happy, so much so that he believes every bit of smoke blown up his hole by the people whispering in his ear.
I'd like to see us play hardball with the current offer if I'm honest, as its more than enough recompense for his current level.
He has huge potential, and obvioiusly will flourish more with better players around him as evidenced by SAS, but if he's gonna be rocking the boat down the line, I'd rather the club not be held ransom by any player. Especially one who has an awful long way to go.
He'll get his Chelsea/150k move at some point, but he can cool his jets in the meantime.

[baitman]

as much as it boils my piss we have to pay him the 100k and get what we can out of him for the next couple of years. sign him for 5-6 years, we will be lucky if he is still here for another two at most.

to bank on sterling changing/saving us is deluded. he might be excellent when surrounded by quality [last season] but he is almost on his own out there and looks like he is running himself into the ground for little or no product as we have no one else putting in a similar effort.

[McDermotX]

To be honest it is not a case of whether or not it is morally wrong for me, but rather that I associate weekly wages of £100k or upwards to be for the type of player who is a difference maker more often than not when he plays a game.

Sterling is very talented and may become that level of player, but he is not there yet.

If we give him £100k at 20, what happens when he turns 22 or 23? Will he be back knocking at the door looking for a double his money deal?


What happens the next time we have a talented young player who looks like he might become even better but who had not actually reached that level yet. Will those players all point to Sterling getting £100k a week at 20 and say that they want the same or they are out?


Part of me gets the logic of paying more to keep a player, but part of me is worried that it will see players of lesser talent then move up a wage bracket when in negotiation with us.

[DannyMan2006]

Give Sterling £100k, years time Markovic may want similar, try & sign that Swiss LW @ Bayern and he'd want the same, etc

[Rich]

Or we piss off the player to the extent he wants out.

[DannyMan2006]

Or we piss off the player to the extent he wants out.

Sterling will want out soon enough unless we compete for top honours. Same can be said if anyone who reaches a certain level. Would be stories of Sturridge leaving had he been fit whilst we languished midtable.

[topscorer]

The only way we will keep top talent is to have a splurge AKA Man City to bring in a group of world class players in one window to show intent. The best players leave to play with the best players and win trophies and we don't have enough best players so we will continually be losing anyone that's any good before we can develop more really good players to play with them.

The owners sort of think they've tried that but they haven't. They spent a lot of money with Dalglish and then Rodgers in one window but buying lots of mediocre players and it wasn't really a lot of money in today's market anyway and Rodgers mini splurge was financed by one of the world class players we should have been trying to buy with a real splurge.

It's not going to happen so in the meantime we will have to get used to players like Sterling making their name with us and then leaving to play with the best players. We just have to hope that once in a while things will align like they did last season so we have just enough talent and injury free support cast to achieve something.

[danperkins]

Getting alot of stick but IMO he was our best player. Worked so hard, his finishing is ****e & should have scored but sure he's not a striker. Was asked to play up top when he's not a natural finisher, got into great positions and created chances.. just needed a good striker there.

So much pressure and expectation on this lad at the moment.. let alone playing him in an unfamiliar position.