Liverpool Thread

[Avenger]

Apart from Sterling being a complete arse, the one thing I'd say is that Liverpool letting him go sets a bad precedent.

Maybe Sterling and his agent made it impossible from the very start but I think clubs should try and copy the Ronaldo/Suarez model whereby they agree to let them go the following summer after one more season wherever possible.

The way things panned out its a good deal and they had to take it, but I wonder if the club and Sterling could have come to an agreement 6 months ago. It's the same with Douglas and Leinster now.

That's all well and good if you have a player like Suarez/Ronaldo who will knuckle down and work hard and basically be professional - Sterlings actions don't give me that impression. Sometimes its just better to cut your losses and move on.

[offshorerules]

Apart from Sterling being a complete arse, the one thing I'd say is that Liverpool letting him go sets a bad precedent.

Maybe Sterling and his agent made it impossible from the very start but I think clubs should try and copy the Ronaldo/Suarez model whereby they agree to let them go the following summer after one more season wherever possible.

The way things panned out its a good deal and they had to take it, but I wonder if the club and Sterling could have come to an agreement 6 months ago. It's the same with Douglas and Leinster now.

That's all well and good if you have a player like Suarez/Ronaldo who will knuckle down and work hard and basically be professional - Sterlings actions don't give me that impression. Sometimes its just better to cut your losses and move on.

I agree, from memory Sterling was rejecting contract offers from Liverpool as early as Christmas if not before that. Thereafter his league form was pretty dodgy at times.

[offshorerules]

Nice for them to win so comfortably yesterday albeit an exhibition match. Also good for Divock to get his first goal quickly. Anyone got a link to the goals?

[Avenger]

I agree, from memory Sterling was rejecting contract offers from Liverpool as early as Christmas if not before that. Thereafter his league form was pretty dodgy at times.

I think it was Jonathan Pearce that was tweeting yesterday that he rejected £90K/week last summer. It was just before Christmas that Ward started leaking information to the press and LFCs final offer to him was along the lines of £130K/week (early 2015) and then he did his BBC interview (March) followed by Ward stating that he wouldn't sign for LFC for £900K/week at which point LFC ended contact.

Its fairly obvious that there had been contact between Sterling and City before Christmas. He knew he was going to get £200K/week there so anything less than that was less than his market value and he has every right to maximise his earnings. I don't think anyone is questioning his right to move on but the way he has gone about it has not been handled well - Pay me as much as Sturridge (he was under paid in fairness), play me as a forward, just want to win trophies, been bullied by the club, any team would want me, can't work with BR . He never actually handed in a transfer request so is due a "loyalty" bonus from LFC which is a farcical situation.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Apart from Sterling being a complete arse, the one thing I'd say is that Liverpool letting him go sets a bad precedent.

Maybe Sterling and his agent made it impossible from the very start but I think clubs should try and copy the Ronaldo/Suarez model whereby they agree to let them go the following summer after one more season wherever possible.

The way things panned out its a good deal and they had to take it, but I wonder if the club and Sterling could have come to an agreement 6 months ago. It's the same with Douglas and Leinster now.

That's all well and good if you have a player like Suarez/Ronaldo who will knuckle down and work hard and basically be professional - Sterlings actions don't give me that impression. Sometimes its just better to cut your losses and move on.

I agree, from memory Sterling was rejecting contract offers from Liverpool as early as Christmas if not before that. Thereafter his league form was pretty dodgy at times.

That's my point though, if he made it clear he wanted to leave then they should have given up on offering contracts and tried to come to an agreement. If you told your employer you wanted to leave and they kept batting you away and offering you a new deal you'd be pissed off too.

It may not have been possible because his agent was certainly very quick to make things awkward with his public statements but that doesnt change the fact that it would have been preferable.

I'm not blaming Liverpool btw, just because I think they could have done things differently doesn't make them wrong, but letting a guy like that have exert so much power is bad news regardless of how it came about.

De Gea looks like being another good example of how to do it. Fingers crossed it looks like he's going to stay next season and hasn't kicked up a fuss which is unusual for a player that Real are after. We're prepared to let him go for free next summer and by actually sticking to that we'll have more credibility when some other player wants to do the same in future and threatens to act the eejit.

I didn't particularly mind when players acted up to go to Real or Barca, but it's very bad news if that becomes more and more common.

[Avenger]

That's my point though, if he made it clear he wanted to leave then they should have given up on offering contracts and tried to come to an agreement.

And are Liverpool supposed to just pay him the £200K/week that he knew he was getting at City for this 12 month agreement? If not, why should Sterling accept that? He knew what he'd be earning at Manchester City - his representative put that out months ago. He was on £35K/week at Liverpool and had turned down offers of £90K and £130K / week.

Its only possible to do what you are saying if both club and player are open to that scenario and that clearly was not the case here.
Liverpool did it in the past with Mascherano and then Hodgeson tried to back out of it stating that it wasn't him that made the deal which forced Mascherano to take drastic action to push through his move. It looks to me like they made a similar deal with Suarez that if Barca/Madrid came in they wouldn't stand in his way and he signed a new contract based on that.
United did it with Ronaldo but I'm sure Ronaldo was on a great wedge when he agreed to his last year.

In an ideal world, this sort of tapping up wouldn't happen and players wouldn't act like they do to force their way out of contacts that they signed... but its not an ideal world.
The player wanted to go - that much is 100% beyond any doubt.
Manchester city were prepared to pay £49m + £200K/week for 5 years on a player who could potentially be world class.
Liverpool were happy to accept this amount and they don't have to pay a player who has been problematic massive wages.
Everyone is happy from what I can see.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Did I not say that it may not have been possible?

From the outside looking in it just looks like Liverpool put their hands over their ears and expected him to just get over his itchy feet when this cropped up initially. I think that's a fair assumption given the contract offers.

Now if they had floated the idea of an extra season with an agreement in place for next summer they may well have got shot down, but my issue is that I don't think that was ever on the table.

Yes everyone is happy from what you can see, when did I say they weren't? It's a good deal for all parties. City overpaid slightly but they got who they wanted and can afford it, no issue there. My issue is the precedent it sets. What happens if someone comes in for Coutinho next summer? Or Ibe after that? Are you really not worried about Sterling's antics becoming more and more common?

[Avenger]

If LFC don't get their act together on the pitch where it matters then it is only a matter of time before Coutinho leaves. Same goes for any player that should be playing at the highest level. There's nothing I or any fan can do about that so no I'm not worried about it. I love football and go as many times a season as I can fit in but I don't lose sleep over defeats or players coming or going. Its only a game.

And BTW I'm not arguing with you. I'm just laying it out as I see it.

[nelly the elephant]

I agree, from memory Sterling was rejecting contract offers from Liverpool as early as Christmas if not before that. Thereafter his league form was pretty dodgy at times.

I think it was Jonathan Pearce that was tweeting yesterday that he rejected £90K/week last summer. It was just before Christmas that Ward started leaking information to the press and LFCs final offer to him was along the lines of £130K/week (early 2015) and then he did his BBC interview (March) followed by Ward stating that he wouldn't sign for LFC for £900K/week at which point LFC ended contact.

Its fairly obvious that there had been contact between Sterling and City before Christmas. He knew he was going to get £200K/week there so anything less than that was less than his market value and he has every right to maximise his earnings. I don't think anyone is questioning his right to move on but the way he has gone about it has not been handled well - Pay me as much as Sturridge (he was under paid in fairness), play me as a forward, just want to win trophies, been bullied by the club, any team would want me, can't work with BR . He never actually handed in a transfer request so is due a "loyalty" bonus from LFC which is a farcical situation.

Let him sue LFC for it the little shitehawk.....

[nelly the elephant]

First of all Liverpool didn't get what they wanted. They wanted Sterling to sign a new contract and stay with the club for another 5+ years. Adding to tat they only accepted the price because they knew he wanted to go and was forcing his way out. If Sterling was on a 6 year contract and wanted to stay I don't believe you guys would have sold him for that price.

Having said that they had to sell, Sterling made sure of that, however you'll only know if the price is a good price in a year or two. It all depends on how Sterling develops and how Liverpool spend the money.

First of all if Sterling continues to improve his value will rise, look at Everton when they sold Rooney. They were sure they got a great price for him then. But look at what they lost and look at what United got. You cant replace certain players. The question is whether Sterling is one of those players. I'm not sure he is, but we don't know yet. If he is though, 50 million will be a steal. Secondly, the good bit of business only applies if the 50million is only a good business if its spent well and the gap that Sterlings loss leaves is appropriately filled. £50 million for Torres when you got Suarez to replace him was fantastic business. £50 for Torres if you only bought Carroll was not. Again we wont know for a few years.

I'm not getting at Liverpool here. Spurs do the same shite all the time. 80 million for Bale was great business in the headlines and on the balance sheet but in the grand scheme of things we were robbed. We lost a player we cant replace and received no real benefit from the sale on the pitch. How could that be considered good business to a fan? Liverpool experienced the same last year. Selling Suarez and buying in a collection of mediocrity. We have to make the best of it I spose, but its sh!t to be losing quality players for what is a mickey mouse sum of money to clubs like City and Chelsea.

This............ some VERY wasteful spending in the last few years..... it's critical that LFC start getting real value for money.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Surely the loyalty bonus would have been factored into the fee?

[Lamb of BOD]

Nice for them to win so comfortably yesterday albeit an exhibition match. Also good for Divock to get his first goal quickly. Anyone got a link to the goals?

http://www.skysports.com/football/thail ... ool/341947

[Avenger]

Surely the loyalty bonus would have been factored into the fee?

My understanding of it is that its a percentage (approx. 10%) of the fee and if the player doesn't explicitly ask for a transfer (via a written transfer request) then he is entitled to the loyalty bonus.

[offshorerules]

Nice for them to win so comfortably yesterday albeit an exhibition match. Also good for Divock to get his first goal quickly. Anyone got a link to the goals?

http://www.skysports.com/football/thail ... ool/341947

Cheers.

[Avenger]

That is nice.

[Logorrhea]

Indeed it is.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Surely the loyalty bonus would have been factored into the fee?

My understanding of it is that its a percentage (approx. 10%) of the fee and if the player doesn't explicitly ask for a transfer (via a written transfer request) then he is entitled to the loyalty bonus.

I know but what I mean is that Liverpool would have asked for a bigger fee to cover it I.e. "well 35m is too low because we'll have to give him 10% of that". Same with the sell on clause to QPR.

[Avenger]

I know but what I mean is that Liverpool would have asked for a bigger fee to cover it I.e. "well 35m is too low because we'll have to give him 10% of that". Same with the sell on clause to QPR.

Probably do but it's farcical that a player gets this after doing everything he can other than put in a transfer request to force a move.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Yeah definitely, I'd imagine he's done enough that they could challenge it if they wanted but it's just not worth the hassle.

[Logorrhea]

Probably do but it's farcical that a player gets this after doing everything he can other than put in a transfer request to force a move.

Yeah but we've seen it so often now. Its pretty ridiculous but all parties would have understood how stupid it is when it was included in the contract.

incidentally I saw an article saying that QPR are due 20% of the fee. Given their precarious financial situation that would be a huge development for them.