Raheem Sterling

[Muddled]

While i agree that's an issue, i think it's avoidable by only paying big bucks to the players that show on and off the pitch that they are worth such money, it's up to every player to show they are worth being one of our higher earners, make Raheem the incentive for others, then all they have to do is....


Put in consistent stand out performances that could be compared favorably to other so called top players around the world.

If they all did that, we'd be a winning team, and money would take care of itself.

Disclaimer: all above comments made in relation to the perfect world i live in.

You're right to a degree, but it's about finding the right balance. Say Ibe, Markovic and Coutinho start performing consistently well and they demand parity. It's rough figures, but if they're currently on the same wage for easy maths, then that's another £10m we have to find. Henderson's contract is up for renewal and (potentially) as our next captain, he might want to be amongst the highest earners.

I think we're right to be prudent and operate within a wage structure or it could spiral out of control within years. Such is the fine line, we could fund it by our potential success or fall away like Leeds if we struggle.

[Vermilion]

You're right to a degree, but it's about finding the right balance. Say Ibe, Markovic and Coutinho start performing consistently well and they demand parity. It's rough figures, but if they're currently on the same wage for easy maths, then that's another £10m we have to find. Henderson's contract is up for renewal and (potentially) as our next captain, he might want to be amongst the highest earners.

I think we're right to be prudent and operate within a wage structure or it could spiral out of control within years. Such is the fine line, we could fund it by our potential success or fall away like Leeds if we struggle.

Tbh, if all those players start performing to a level deemed worthy of a massive contract, it would mean they are all shining for us.

So if needs be we just sell one for 40mill.

We'd cope with such a superbly performing side.

[DannyMan2006]

The main problem is that it can easily become a slippy slope on wage budget in general. Every single club have a wage policy that's related to age/squad status and it's not a simple task going around it.

Say Sterling get's a unprecedented wage rise now, and get terms that more established team members have and they want a similar wage rise to keep the squad status / wage ratio intact. Then it's costing us even more, and if the other youngsters we have feel they should follow relatively it's a snowball effect. If not fullfilled, we might get unrest in the squad etc.

There are good reasons why there are wage policies that go beyond the bottom line for the single player. If the club isn't willing to break the wage policy for Sterling, then it's likely for the best. I'm on the Sterling needs to be realistic team and still have something to strive after as the rest of the squad.

I would hope we don't have a squad full of players who are in the game just for money, I would say that we have a team that are motivated by glory more than money. I think the same goes for Raheem. I don't think we can throw all these accusations against him, he's not involved in the contractual negotiations.

But I think the crux of the post I've quoted here, gets it bang on the money. Throw an extra £20k at Raheem, and that's what we'll have to give the others. Raheem has had a good year. That's all. I've seen loads of players in the past have a great year and then tail off. He may well go on to be a world class player, but then again he might not.

As Zap said earlier, I think he'll stay anyway, it's just a media storm like last time he signed a deal. But if Gerrard can nearly leave over contractual issues (2005) then I guess anyone could.

[captainfog]

OK then, so his current level of ability stops him being worth more than 90k a week but it doesn't stop him being worth 45m?

You're right it doesn't, otherwise no player would be sold in Italy for more than 50p.

[RichC]

So according to the BBC he's out of tonight's game.

[Muddled]

Bugger.

I'd like to see Coutinho and Lallana behind Sturridge then.

[DannyMan2006]

Bugger.

I'd like to see Coutinho and Lallana behind Sturridge then.

I would, but it's Markovic and Couts.

[McDermotX]

So according to the BBC he's out of tonight's game.

Good.......Sell the ****house, head not in the right place etc etc etc

[McDermotX]

If you don't pay your top players top wages then ultimaty they'll leave for clubs who will. And then we won't be a top club anymore.

If experience is so important then why has Raheem played more minutes than anyone else in our side this season? Based on utilisation he should be the club's top earner.

Not to labour a point, but in the cold hard reality of the new superclubs........we're really not quite up there.

It sounds somewhat supercilious to think we we should be paying out left, right and center in line with what the others are, when just a cursory glance of our bargaining position in transfer dealings for top targets that other 'top clubs' would be interested in suggests otherwise.

Plus, by experience, I was more so referring to his length of time in first-team level football in comparison to some of the older pros, not a quick snapshot of his appearances this season and last. But I suspect, most people reading it will understand what I mean. He's got a long way to go in the game yet, and no doubt he probably sees his future long-term away from us, but nothing is certain regarding the career of a footballer - he could be playing for Real in a couple of years, or clubbing on his bounty after a career-threatening injury.

FWIW.......I hope we keep hold of him of course, at a fair and just recompense, but if not, so be it. We'll sell him on our terms (probably not as high a price as we'd like).

[Bender]

I know Bender, i feel your pain, the money in football is obscene, especially for the more gifted of players.

Saying that, if we don't pay the best players what they believe they could get elsewhere; then they'll go, as will every decent young player we find.

It's a bit ****, but it could be the difference between building a top team with young players we pick up and not being able to.

With Sterling, i look at it and think....how much did we pay for him ? Compared with what he could be worth, and offset his wages that way, ofcourse that doesn't overcome the moral implications of giving in to his cuntin agent! But it will hopefully make us a better team going forward.

Bloody hell Bender, you posted again before i could answer! and have said more or less what i have above!

Player player

[Fan65]

"Well that proves there's room for improvement in your game.

Keep working hard and come back in a year and we'll have another look at your wages.

Can't say fairer than that even with my new choppers"

[kev776]

Needs to sort out his assists before he is worth a payrise

[baitman]

i cant find my original post, maybe it wasnt in this thread... basically, i said then;

a while back when there was speculation about his new contract i said we should pay him the 100k just to ensure he is signed up on a 5-6 year deal.
incentivise it as much as possible, but we need to nail him to a new contract.

sterling may be a young kid, and we dont want to start handing out 100k contracts like confetti but we also need to ensure that we secure his services.
if he decides he wants to push for more in a year or two then it will only be because of his continued improvement and contribution to the team.

if he wants out then hopefully the long term deal will ensure we can recoup some daft amount for him.

[Exiled_red]

I think the way forward would be to give he a good basic wage but top it up with incentives, such as every season he scores 20 goals he salary the following year goes up by 10k a week or something. That way he gets a good wage and there is an incentive for him to push on and develop and if he has scored 20 goal a season every year for the next five years then he will have earned a salary of ~130k (or whatever) a week. I think that deals like that are the way things should go. To me something like that should suit both the player and the club.

[spud_gun]

In light of today's news regarding the increase in the TV contracts we should have given Sterling the 120k that his agent wanted last week.

Any agent worth their salt is going to want a slice of that for their client and during the life of that contract 120, 150, 200k per week isn't going to seem as outlandish as it does now.