Raheem Sterling

[Doc_Piptorious]

Yeah, but I don't think we should be looking at this in proportion to his current salary. His current salary is way off his current contribution.

He is one of our maybe top five players? The others are in the 70-150.000 bracket I guess. I'd rather land him at 120-130.000 for the next five years then risk having to sell him cut-price.

If the other players contribute like he does then fair enough, negotiate with them again.

Would love to know where a £120k to £130k a week salary stands against what is being earned a week by the likes of Sakho, Henderson, Coutinho, Skrtel, and Sturridge.

Sturridge I expect to be on over £100k a week but then again he would be expected to contribute more over a course of a season than Sterling.



And if the likes of Can, Moreno, Markovic, and Ibe finish the season strongly, should we be looking to put all of them on a six figure weekly wage as well?

[Muddled]

Yeah, but I don't think we should be looking at this in proportion to his current salary. His current salary is way off his current contribution.

Why not? It's a good a starting point as any. If not, we'd just be throwing money around willy-nilly plucking figures out of the sky.

He is one of our maybe top five players? The others are in the 70-150.000 bracket I guess. I'd rather land him at 120-130.000 for the next five years then risk having to sell him cut-price.

If the other players contribute like he does then fair enough, negotiate with them again.

Yes, he's been playing well this season and grew in stature the season just gone, but that's it. He has a lot to prove and a lot to learn, why throw an exceptional amount of money at potential that has yet to be realised?

We're rewarding these performances with a hefty pay rise. He needs to know that if continues in this way, he'll get rewarded again.

[Muddled]

And if the likes of Can, Moreno, Markovic, and Ibe finish the season strongly, should we be looking to put all of them on a six figure weekly wage as well?

An extra £30,000 a week suddenly becomes £150,00. An extra £1.5m a year becomes £7.8m. A hefty amount that might have an impact on our transfer budget. That's roughly one fifth of an Andy Carroll.

[Muddled]

Deleted.

[Exiled_red]

Would love to know where a £120k to £130k a week salary stands against what is being earned a week by the likes of Sakho, Henderson, Coutinho, Skrtel, and Sturridge.

Sturridge I expect to be on over £100k a week but then again he would be expected to contribute more over a course of a season than Sterling.



And if the likes of Can, Moreno, Markovic, and Ibe finish the season strongly, should we be looking to put all of them on a six figure weekly wage as well?

That would certainly have been the case a couple of years ago when they signed their current contracts, but Sterling has progressed alot over the last 18 months. He has essentially played himself into the position where he is one of our most important players. I guess it depends on how you define their 'contribution'. In terms of goals Sturridge should contribute more, in terms of all round game I would say the two are comparible. In terms of wages I guess you are happier to pay Sturridge more because he has produced over a longer period of time, from that point of view his wages are (in business terms) a safer investment. The fact that Sterling is arguably contributing a similar amount at such a young age is obviously something that his agent is using to get a better deal while the club are presumably of the view that because he is so young he hasn't sustained that success over as long a period as for example Sturridge so represents more of a risk.

I can see that the club don't want to get in a position where they are paying alot of money to alot of young players whose wages are likely to go up and up should they stay with the club. The issue is that if we really believe that Sterling is one of the best young players in Europe and will develop into a superstar then we have to pay a wage that reflects that otherwise we will lose him to someone who will pay him what he wants.

[DannyMan2006]

Sterling isn't a big enough name to be getting a massive wage. Real Madrid and the rest wouldn't touch him with a barge pole. Players get huge salaries based on a number of factors, chief amongst them is image rights. Beckham wasn't at Real Madrid for his ability.

People comparing him to Balotelli should take note that he's a massive name and sells merchandise. Raheem isn't and doesn't. Probably has the bogus reports of him having had ten kids to thank for his small marketing prospects.

If Raheem's agent was to walk into a clubs offices and say he deserves £150k purely based on his footballing ability and future potential, he'd get laughed out the room.

[Norbs]

Then when his next contract expires, or close to, if we can't afford his wage demands sell him. But for a big fee, and after an extra 3 years service. He should be worth a lot more by then. My point is it is the wrong time to sell and his wage demands shouldn't have too greater an influence on other peoples, as Sturridge's never. And players wages are indexed to what they bring to the pitch, and their market value is linked to where they play. A good CF will always be paid more than a good CM. You can bet your bottom dollar that Falco is on more than Alonso or Masch. That's the way of the world. I'm not saying you create an arbitrary index to price your players, but you need to be aware of what your players are worth and where they might go when entering these negotiations. If Sterling left he'd possibly interest Real, Barca and Bayern among others. Henderson, as much as I love him wouldn't. So Sterling is worth a greater salary. I agree with your point that in an ideal world we would give him a highly incentivised contract, which should grow with his performances, if the club can negotiate it I'd be all for that. The numbers to me aren't important as we have no real idea what has been offered and what is wanted. The point of the article is hypothetical, and that is that Liverpool should be prepared to make Sterling the second highest earner at the club, if that is what it takes to keep him. He is 20, a huge talent, and if we don't pay him it the fact that somebody else will means that it's his market rate. There is lots of money swishing around right now, and when the near TV deal kicks in wages will kick on again, and this won't seem too bad business at all.

At the end of, or close to, his next contract expiry would be a terrible time to sell him if his value has gone up by a lot. The only time you can command a decent fee is with at least two years to run

[colpro]

At the end of, or close to, his next contract expiry would be a terrible time to sell him if his value has gone up by a lot. The only time you can command a decent fee is with at least two years to run

Mere semantics... I meant 3 years into a 5 year deal... We could then claim a higher fee, as he'd still be 23, have the next Euros under his belt for England and have played an additional 150+ games for us...

[spud_gun]

New TV contract will be worth 100m per season. 30k a week extra for Sterling though clearly in the relms of silly money is more than affordable for the owners.

[Vermilion]

Yeah no doubt we can afford it, especially with the new deal.

But is that the point, should the extra money be thrown at inflated contracts just because we have it ?

Like i say, i still firmly believe that money will not be the reason Raheem stays or leaves lfc, especially at this stage of his career, just don't see it at all, he's playing regular football for a top club, more games than many older players at clubs like Citeh etc, so long as what we offer isn't insulting/taking the piss, then if he truly wants to keep playing at Lfc, he'll stay and be more than happy with the deal we give him.

[The_weatherman]

Would love to know where a £120k to £130k a week salary stands against what is being earned a week by the likes of Sakho, Henderson, Coutinho, Skrtel, and Sturridge.

Sturridge I expect to be on over £100k a week but then again he would be expected to contribute more over a course of a season than Sterling.



And if the likes of Can, Moreno, Markovic, and Ibe finish the season strongly, should we be looking to put all of them on a six figure weekly wage as well?

Isn't Sturridge on 150.000 although heavily incentivised. Who are your first five names on the sheet now? For me, I'd say Sturridge, Sterling, Henderson, Sakho and Can, maybe not in that order. We have a plan, to recruit promising players and let them grow, but to keep them together we need to pay them. Luke Shaw is on 100.000, Januzaj on 60.000, Odegaard something similar. If we want to keep the best players, the most promising player in Europe, we might have to pay for it.

It's not a heated matter for me, but I do believe we have to pay the market rate, and Sterling's 30.000 is not, we shouldn't use that as a benchmark in any negotations with Sterling.

[baronvonskidmark]

Isn't Sturridge on 150.000 although heavily incentivised. Who are your first five names on the sheet now? For me, I'd say Sturridge, Sterling, Henderson, Sakho and Can, maybe not in that order. We have a plan, to recruit promising players and let them grow, but to keep them together we need to pay them. Luke Shaw is on 100.000, Januzaj on 60.000, Odegaard something similar. If we want to keep the best players, the most promising player in Europe, we might have to pay for it.

It's not a heated matter for me, but I do believe we have to pay the market rate, and Sterling's 30.000 is not, we shouldn't use that as a benchmark in any negotations with Sterling.

Yeah, I agree with this. Any player should be payed according to their value to the first team, not their age.

[Vermilion]

Isn't Sturridge on 150.000 although heavily incentivised. Who are your first five names on the sheet now? For me, I'd say Sturridge, Sterling, Henderson, Sakho and Can, maybe not in that order. We have a plan, to recruit promising players and let them grow, but to keep them together we need to pay them. Luke Shaw is on 100.000, Januzaj on 60.000, Odegaard something similar. If we want to keep the best players, the most promising player in Europe, we might have to pay for it.

It's not a heated matter for me, but I do believe we have to pay the market rate, and Sterling's 30.000 is not, we shouldn't use that as a benchmark in any negotations with Sterling.

Of course 30k isn't the benchmark, we are looking to pay him double or maybe even near on treble that, if that's not enough for him to sign, then i don't believe he ever would.

The majority of the players you named, had to wait till they were older before getting such contracts, i don't think it's been a detracting factor in their development either, maybe even a positive, too much to young etc, which BR is keen to remind everyone can be a bad thing to do.

[spud_gun]

Yeah no doubt we can afford it, especially with the new deal.

But is that the point, should the extra money be thrown at inflated contracts just because we have it ?

Like i say, i still firmly believe that money will not be the reason Raheem stays or leaves lfc, especially at this stage of his career, just don't see it at all, he's playing regular football for a top club, more games than many older players at clubs like Citeh etc, so long as what we offer isn't insulting/taking the piss, then if he truly wants to keep playing at Lfc, he'll stay and be more than happy with the deal we give him.

I'd rather the money was reinvested in the team. Be that in inflated contracts or transfer fees and not into the pockets of the owners.

[Vermilion]

I'd rather the money was reinvested in the team. Be that in inflated contracts or transfer fees and not into the pockets of the owners.

Me too, sure it will be, but i'm talking from the point of view of what i think is a fair wage.

I just think 70-80k is, and thickening our sqaud with better quality talent will cost money too, we don't have overflowing coffers like some clubs.