Raheem Sterling

[Nicey]

Good post

I am not really that fussed about Sterling, although I have said it before I expected issues like this almost from day one. Ultimately I would like him to stay, he's a cracking footballer who is only going to get better. If he goes he will go will my best wishes.

His Agent however is another story, I honestly would go out to destroy him, if he thinks he is bigger than the clubs then if the clubs know whats good for them I would band together and kick that cheeky ******* to the curb

[Bender]

Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers has urged supporters not to take out their frustrations on Sterling over his contract stand-off. (Times - subscription required)
yeah right

[TheElephantMan]

That means we would need to get at least £31.25m just to 'breakeven' from a sale, because of the 20% to QPR.

Then consider the value of making a statement and showing strength and setting a precedent for other players.

You'd have to say we'd be losing money if we accepted any less than £45m this summer compared with letting him go on a 'free' in 2 years time. And if he is going to a rival team in the Premier League you have to get a premium on the £45m because strengthening a direct competitor means we need to spend more just to stay on a par with them.

Excellent post - so letting him rot in the ressies isn't a bad idea.

The bit in the middle ^ is really important I feel, we can't be seen to be too soft. This is one area where FSG seem to excel and whatever happens it will be beneficial to the club.

[Roboklopp]

If we let him rot in the ressies it's not offsetting the costs topscorer is on about.

[TheElephantMan]

If we keep him and he takes up a first team place at the expense of another player then it sends out the wrong message. Players need to earn their place and the current situation is bad for the team. If he gets his head down and plays to the best of his ability then there won't be a problem, but that's all we would expect anyway? We have a disgruntled player, something needs to happen. If we get rid it has to be for the right money, if we keep then we have more to think about. I would have no problem just letting him rot.

[danperkins]

So looking at the financial side of forcing Sterling to remain for the full term of his current contract.

Considering what we have offered him, what the papers say other clubs have offered him and what we would have to pay for a replacement I think we can say we will save at least £7m in wages.

Considering how much we paid for Lovren, Markovic, Lallana etc then I think we can say that a suitable replacement would cost at least £30m, amortized over a 4 year contract would mean £15m for the 2 years.

Then since he has come through our youth academy we would probably get £4m even if he leaves on a free, minus 20% to QPR, let's round it down to £3m.

That means we would need to get at least £31.25m just to 'breakeven' from a sale, because of the 20% to QPR.

Then consider the value of making a statement and showing strength and setting a precedent for other players.

You'd have to say we'd be losing money if we accepted any less than £45m this summer compared with letting him go on a 'free' in 2 years time. And if he is going to a rival team in the Premier League you have to get a premium on the £45m because strengthening a direct competitor means we need to spend more just to stay on a par with them.

No way is he worth that in the open market. Someone like Man City might pay a premium because they need English players but they've already been done for breaking FFP so how are they going to afford to pay a premium and not break FFP again?

No way is he worth £45m, he isn't anywhere near good enough yet. Better than average? Yes. Class A level start player? Not a chance.

So financially speaking it seems to me that FSG are absolutely correct to refuse to sell him and make him complete his contract. What they say might not be a strategy to maximize sales price but a factually thought out financial decision.

It's not a forgone conclusion that Sterling will leave this summer so I'd say us fans should take it out in the Agent but leave Sterling alone and give him the benefit of the doubt.

I'd keep him unless a European club offers £45m or more.

[captainfog]

I think Sterling will sign a new contract with a release clause and bugger off next summer. If it were down to me then I'd just sell him now and be done with it.

[Vermilion]

Agree with all that. TS.

The one thing not mentioned though that could impact on the clubs future and strategy, is that if we are seen to be playing hard ball with every young un we sign that comes good and wants to leave, will the best young un's agents let them join us ? and if they do, will they want certain guarantees contract wise?

[EwarWoo]

Considering how much we paid for Lovren, Markovic, Lallana etc then I think we can say that a suitable replacement would cost at least £30m, amortized over a 4 year contract would mean £15m for the 2 years.

But it doesn't really work that way though does it. You could pay 30m and in 2 years sell for 50m, or 1m, or anything between. Or they could sign a new contract and be here for 15 years.

And more importantly, we won't get a free transfer to us in 2 years because we let him go on a free. We wouldn't be saving a transfer fee, we'd be delaying it.

You don't pay the transfer fee per year. Simplifying it down to that is a bit of a flaw in the logic. In the same way that the Grand Canyon is a bit of a flaw in the desert.

You'd have to say we'd be losing money if we accepted any less than £45m this summer compared with letting him go on a 'free' in 2 years time.

What? Even with your ridiculous logic 15m + 3m + 20% = 21m not 45. Where has 45 come from?

[TheElephantMan]

What? Even with your ridiculous logic 15m + 3m + 20% = 21m not 45. Where has 45 come from?

accountants fighting!

[tanner]

accountants fighting!

[RedReet]

So looking at the financial side of forcing Sterling to remain for the full term of his current contract.

Considering what we have offered him, what the papers say other clubs have offered him and what we would have to pay for a replacement I think we can say we will save at least £7m in wages.

Considering how much we paid for Lovren, Markovic, Lallana etc then I think we can say that a suitable replacement would cost at least £30m, amortized over a 4 year contract would mean £15m for the 2 years.

Then since he has come through our youth academy we would probably get £4m even if he leaves on a free, minus 20% to QPR, let's round it down to £3m.

That means we would need to get at least £31.25m just to 'breakeven' from a sale, because of the 20% to QPR.

Then consider the value of making a statement and showing strength and setting a precedent for other players.

You'd have to say we'd be losing money if we accepted any less than £45m this summer compared with letting him go on a 'free' in 2 years time. And if he is going to a rival team in the Premier League you have to get a premium on the £45m because strengthening a direct competitor means we need to spend more just to stay on a par with them.

No way is he worth that in the open market. Someone like Man City might pay a premium because they need English players but they've already been done for breaking FFP so how are they going to afford to pay a premium and not break FFP again?

No way is he worth £45m, he isn't anywhere near good enough yet. Better than average? Yes. Class A level start player? Not a chance.

So financially speaking it seems to me that FSG are absolutely correct to refuse to sell him and make him complete his contract. What they say might not be a strategy to maximize sales price but a factually thought out financial decision.

It's not a forgone conclusion that Sterling will leave this summer so I'd say us fans should take it out in the Agent but leave Sterling alone and give him the benefit of the doubt.

I'd keep him unless a European club offers £45m or more.

I haven't scrutinised the maths, but surely option one, the 'break even' option gives us a £30m player who ideally wants to play for us, whereas option 2 gives us nothing?

What am I missing here?

[topscorer]

Raheem Sterling

I haven't scrutinised the maths, but surely option one, the 'break even' option gives us a £30m player who ideally wants to play for us, whereas option 2 gives us nothing?



What am I missing here?

The break even is higher than £30m and I haven't even considered the cost of selling and buying, agent fees, time consumed etc.

And how can you be sure the replacement will be as good as Sterling?

If we force him to stay then yes, maybe, his performance will drop for a few weeks but not for two years.

He's only 20 and he wants to play football, he wants to be selected for England and he wants a top club in the Champions League to buy him and pay him loadsa money. Not Everton or Sunderland or something.

He needs to keep performing at a high level of he wants a top club to give him a contract when he eventually leaves.

[RedReet]

The break even is higher than £30m and I haven't even considered the cost of selling and buying, agent fees, time consumed etc.

And how can you be sure the replacement will be as good as Sterling?

If we force him to stay then yes, maybe, his performance will drop for a few weeks but not for two years.

He's only 20 and he wants to play football, he wants to be selected for England and he wants a top club in the Champions League to buy him and pay him loadsa money. Not Everton or Sunderland or something.

He needs to keep performing at a high level of he wants a top club to give him a contract when he eventually leaves.

Sorry, I thought you were trying to justify letting him rot in the reserves.

[topscorer]

Sorry, I thought you were trying to justify letting him rot in the reserves.

No, that would be silly. But of course he has to earn his place like everyone else.