5 Jan 2015

Done Deal: 'Dazzling' star to sign 5-year £25m LFC deal 'at the end of the month'

Last month, Reds captain Steven Gerrard made a public plea for Raheem Sterling to sign a new deal with the club, and it looks like the 'dazzling' attacker is close to reaching an agreement with Liverpool.

Speaking to reporters in December, Gerrard insisted that Liverpool is the 'perfect' club for £31m-rated Sterling, and explained why he 'hopes' the youngster 'signs a new contract':

"He’s going to play most weeks, the fans love him here. He can progress here and become a top, top player here so I hope the people around him give him the right advice. He’s got to keep learning, he’s got to keep wanting it"

According to multiple reports over the weekend:

* Sterling will soon sign a new 5-year contract worth £100K-a-week.
* Significant progress was made with Sterling's advisers over Christmas.

Speaking to The Mirror, an alleged club source confirmed the deal:

“It was always the club’s intention to show Raheem how much we value him and the new contract will be in place by the end of the month.”

I'm sure fans will rejoice at the news, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Sterling as no loyalty to Liverpool; like most players in elite leagues, he has loyalty to money, and that's it. If that's not the case, why did he stall on signing a new deal? Why did he (seemingly) hold the club to ransom by rejecting £70k a week, which is a fantastic deal for a 20-year old?

What happens a year from now if/when Sterling kicks on even more - give him another 50K a week payrise just to keep him at the club? Mark my words, at some point over the next two years, the same tedious saga will replay itself all over again, and though it'll be similarly obvious that Sterling is a mercenary, fans will continue to bury their heads in the sand.

Sterling has made a rod for his own back, now. At the age of 20, he'll be earning £100K a week, and that means he has to deliver on a consistent basis. He recently went 17 games without a goal, and that was somewhat forgivable given his young ages.

Well, now that he's bled the club dry for £5.2m a year, there's nowhere to hide. It's time to deliver.

Author:



124 comments:

  1. If we do not make him one of our highest earners then the likes of Madrid will have no issue to offer him a fat wage...


    Wonder if we will see Balotelli tonight? If he does not at least make the bench then that pretty much will give you the idea that he is going, going, gone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is hardly any loyalty left in football these days. Players follow the money.
    The problem is, is that clubs started offering these crazy contract in the first place, and FIFA/FA etc... allowed it all to happen. If they had put some kind of control in years ago, then we wouldn't be seeing all these crazy figures being tossed around, and you would probably see more on a even balance in terms of clubs abilities.
    But as of now, the rule seems to be if you are rich, you're successful.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 50% of that 100k is going for taxes. Your government wouldn't allow FA to reduce the wages...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lately i see Sterling brings the ball to a corner and get stuck in between defenders followed by poor croses. This was not how he was playing last season. I used to see him cutting to the center and into the D Box to make killer shots and pases. Hope with the 100K wage, he improves.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What a wonderful world we live in!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Shaqiri supposedly going to Inter- will earn less than if he came here - is San Siro or Mancini more attractive than Rodgers and Anfield- looks like it. If it's true then this has been another long drawn out non event

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sometimes these high wages are meant to keep players in the current club. Clubs like Real Madrid comes in with lucrative offers to plug players out from us. Its a win win for Sterling.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I understand your point, but "bled the club dry" is a tad melodramatic at best.
    We have agreed to sign up arguably the most promising young English player for the next 5 years and that is brilliant news. I think this is the going rate for top talents, and Sterling's lack of goals could also be attributed to the fact that he has been playing in a poor team for the first half of the season. If looking at his performances and not simply using stats, he has been our best player this season (Lallana has been v good but not in enough games) and that for a 20 year old at a club the size of Liverpool is an indication of his talent, temperament and ability.
    I don't have the figures nor will I be looking them up, but I am pretty sure that Rooney when he joined Utd, Hazard when joining Chelsea (Barkley when he moves) and similarly rated young players were all on similar wages. How much do you think an inferior talent like Welbeck is on at Arsenal? 70 / 80 grand plus the signing on fee - what's the difference?
    If we aren't prepared to sign top rated talents then the least we could do is hang on to the few we have and who knows, this may just tempt a few other top players to Anfield, because as you said, money talks and this shows we are serious.
    Finally, imagine Sterling had come through the youth set up at Bayern, Real, Barca etc - how much would it cost us to sign him and would a player like that come to us?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Heh... One of the main reasons I am such a lunatic about our club is that we used to have something more than players playing for money, Less and less of that... Flanno, make us proud...

    ReplyDelete
  10. We would not have been able to fit Shaqiri in anywhere though. We have far too many attacking players but yes, Mancini without a doubt has a bigger pull compared to Rodgers.

    ReplyDelete
  11. He needs to play at number 10. He was deadly last season playing there but we need pace ahead of him to create space and drag defenders all over the show.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I see your points, but I doubt Liverpool have signed Sterling up 'for the next 5 years'. They've signed him up for about a year, until:

    * Madrid etc start offering him more money.

    * Sterling decides he's worth more than £100K, and starts angling for another new deal.

    Contracts are worthless in football. A lot of players have a rampaging sense of entitlement, and fans are to blame for that (IMO)

    If Sterling plays well over the next year, this contract saga will run once again next summer. His agent will start feeding stories to the media about interest from Madrid/Barca etc, and LFC will bend over again.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yea I get that. But I think the point is, is that why does Sterling feel the need to try and squeeze out an extra £30k or whatever its rumoured to be.
    These guys have arguably one of the best jobs in the world, and already earn huge amounts of money, yet all they seem to want is more.

    It just makes me a bit sick.

    ReplyDelete
  14. His contract is going to be an expensive one for Madrid if Sterling decides he wants to leave should they come knocking so bump up his worth at the club and get the maximum when he leaves or see him go for peanuts.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jamie, you say "Sterling has no loyalty to LFC". Why should he? I'm tired of hearing the same accusation. Being a professional footballer is no different to any other job. People forget it's a JOB like any other. Do most people in other jobs put loyalty above money? NO. So why should a footballer? In the corporate world people get head hunted and move around within their industries. That's ok but if a footballer does it he gets called a money grabber and disloyal.

    I would always put the needs and happiness of my family above loyalty to any firm or organisation.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Or, Sterling consistently plays well and improves for Liverpool, he stays and we sign better players and win things and we regularly reward him with better terms.
    Why can't this be the outcome?
    We shall see...

    ReplyDelete
  17. I understand your point, but this is hardly "any other job". Sterling has thousands of fans, young Liverpool kids who look up to him. The club arguably made him who he is today. They gave him the chance to perform at the top level.
    Do you really think Sterling and his family are unhappy?

    ReplyDelete
  18. But look at it this way. Madrid can not only offer him more money but also guarantee him success in the form of trophies.


    What guarantees does he have at LFC? Same with Gerrard, just because he is one of our highest earners does not mean he was just after money. He could have gone to Chelsea and earned much more than what he is now and won loads of trophies. The only way we are going to keep Sterling is to flash the cash.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Imo he doesn't have the technical quality to be an effective N°10, his ball control have been poor and he often just simply pass the ball to the defender marking him, his dribbling has also been off with him trying some trick and just letting the defender taking the ball away from him.
    Sure if he has some space he's effective but against top teams you don't have the luxury in the middle.
    I'd rather see him as a winger/second striker where he can exploit his pace the best.

    ReplyDelete
  20. he deserves 100k a week, he plays near enough every game for us and for england and ppl think he dont deserve 100k. reason why he went 17 games with no goals is because the kid is tired. ffs how greedy are football fans

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hyperbole? Nonsense. When it suits, you just look at things on the surface, and ignore everything else between the lines.

    Suggesting that 'all players are about money' is a gigantic, disingenuous copout, and just shows that you're an apologist for greedy LFC players.

    What happens at other clubs is irrelevant. Obviously Sterling held out for £100k because 'it's an even better deal', but that's not the point. 'Holding out' as you put it, is holding the club to ransom.

    And it feels like you're being deliberately naive by gloating the idea that LFC wouldn't pay Sterling more if they 'didn't want to'. As if it's that simple. Sterling has the club over a barrel:

    * Suarez left
    * Sturridge is always injured.
    * Most of Rodgers signings are failures.
    * The club has no effective strikers.
    * Gerrard is leaving

    Etc.

    Sterling has clearly used the turmoil at LFC to his advantage.

    If LFC still had Suarez; Sturridge never got injured, and BR's signings immeasurably improved the team, then the club would be in a stronger bargaining position, and could tell him to take it or leave it.

    LFC could still do that now, but FSG et al don't have the balls.

    In my view, fans who hold views like yours are the reason that player-power and greed is rampant in the game. Instead of taking a stand, you just make excuses for avarice.

    Obviously, one supported can't make a difference, but if fans as a collective vehemently voiced their opposition to the rampant greed in the game, then it would make a difference.

    A year from now, when Sterling 'holds out' for a pay-rise to £150k a week, you'll probably still be singing the same tune.

    ReplyDelete
  22. the express news paper has this head line "Liverpool WIN RACE for Bayern's Xherdan Shaqiri after TRUMPING Inter's wage offer"....who's telling the truth?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Contracts don't ensure that clubs are heavily compensated. Suarez had several new deals at LFC, and still left for a comparatively small amount (vs. his actual worth).

    ReplyDelete
  24. You say trophies Loges well i wouldnt feel i would have earned a medal or trophy if i had spent 90 percent of the season on the bench.

    ReplyDelete
  25. We can expect this story to change a few more times no doubt

    ReplyDelete
  26. So you're seriously saying that a five year contract won't ensure we get a big transfer fee if say Madrid or Bayern come in for him in a year or two?!


    And I'd say that we did ok out of the Suarez deal. Ok as a player he was worth more but you know as well as I do that the fee went down because of his shocking disciplinary record which no-one can argue with. And we DIDN'T have to sell Suarez, no matter what anyone says, so yes contracts do have worth

    ReplyDelete
  27. Suarez is 1 nibble off ruining his career that bite cost us big.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Jaime, if we offer Sterling £70k a week over 5 years his contract will be worth +- £15m?

    ReplyDelete
  29. At £250k a week over 5 years we still got more than £60 000 000 which is what his contract would have been worth.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It's not guaranteed. Did LFC get huge transfer fees for Owen and McManaman? No. Sometimes, it works out (Torres, for example); others, it doesn't.

    Contracts don't have worth in the sense that if a player decides he wants a pay-rise after a year, then he can pursue it, instead of just honouring his current deal.

    Sterling will push for more money in a year, irrespective of his 5-year deal, and Liverpool will cave.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Under Rodgers, we will continue to pay over the odds for average players. Is Sterling at 20 years old really worth £100k a week? Or should we cash in now, i'm pretty sure Real / Barca would offer stupid amounts of money for him just to sit on the bench for the next 3-4 years.

    I remember getting excited at a young Michael Owen, Robbie Fowler, Steve McManaman and a certain Steven Gerrard bursting through, but does Sterling have the same drive, passion and hunger to succeed at Liverpool? My head and heart say no.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Untravelled paths? Sorry if I am being boring, just wanna know is it happening..

    ReplyDelete
  33. What's your point? That should be enough for Sterling, and if he rejected it, LFC should've sold him to the highest bidder. I couldn't care less if he's one of LFC's best players - by caving-in, you set a negative precedent. By showing strength, the club sends a strong message to potential mercenaries.

    This policy will lead to LFC losing a couple of top players, but so be it. In the long run, it will be beneficial for the club.

    Right now, LFC is a lame duck. Players who perform well have all the power, and all they need to do to get an obscene pay-rise is threaten to leave.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ultimately Owen and Fowler did not achieve jack shit in the game. Sterling will do better than the pair of them I've no doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Aagh, I'm sorry. I've been really slack recently with updating that part of the site. I'll try and get it done today. Sorry for taking so long.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I'm sorry but they are not good examples, and make my point even more, Mcmanaman ran his contract down so it was our own fault for not tying him down to a new one and therefore allowing him to go for free (although you could still argue we got that contract's worth from him already as he stayed for it's entirety), and similarly Owen only had a year left and therefore the fee was reduced. My point is that Sterling is now tied for five years, that guarantees us a very good transfer fee if he's sold over the next two. Once he signs the point is it then becomes our choice as a club due to that contract- we either renew his contract (at a higher wage no doubt) or we sell. The ball is in our court, not his.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Owen, and especially Fowler, will be revered in the hearts and minds of LFC fans long after Sterling is forgotten. Sterling is a mercenary; he will keep holding the club to ransom over the next 2-3 years until he leaves for Madrid, Barca, or probably even Chelsea. Then, his career will nosedive as he gets drunk on the money and the fame.

    Sterling will never be Liverpool legend.

    ReplyDelete
  38. But then Sterling can reject a new contract offer and Madrid can pay even less for Sterling who is on a reported £40k a week at the moment. Players fees are based on the worth of their contract.


    Football is not what it was 50 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Again... just name me one player who says it's not about the money and I'll name you a liar.


    The sport is a business. It's not what it used to be. Players and owners are about money, pure and simple.


    I'm not being naive. I'm just being realistic.


    You're correct with everything you said about Sterling negotiating a better deal based on the club's circumstances. But that's what it is... negotiating.

    It's all about market value. If he can get 100k from somewhere else, he's going to do everything he can to max out a contract at LFC. And it's up to LFC to make that determination.

    Every single player in the world does this.


    Why do you think Steven Gerrard is leaving LFC? Because the club wasn't going to pay him what he wanted to be paid, and the club wasn't going to play him every game so they couldn't justify paying him what he wanted.


    You have a glorified view of what you hope the sport could be (based on what it used to be before the huge influx in money). It's not that way any more and it won't ever be that way again.

    It really is that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  40. You serious? Owen went onto score 40 goals for England, won us the FA Cup on his own, he even won European Player of the Year whilst at Liverpool.
    Fowler scored the quickest hattrick by any player in the top flight. He also scored shed load of goals and was also part of the great 2001 team we had.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The ball is not in LFC's court! Believe that if you like, but Sterling has all the power here, not LFC.

    There's no such thing as tying a player down for 5 years. It's all semantics. If Sterling wants to leave next year, then he'll leave; perhaps not right away, but like Suarez, it won't take long, irrespective of his contract length.

    If LFC had any power in the situation, they would've given Sterling a 'take it or leave it' £70k a week deal, and called his bluff. LFC didn't do that - the club gave in, and now it has no power.

    ReplyDelete
  42. You must not be very old.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Exactly. Owen and Fowler achieved a hell of a lot. Success is not just measured by trophies.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Gee, thanks for the history lesson. Your point here has nothing to do with the point I made below.

    ReplyDelete
  45. New deals mean two things - more money for the player. Possibly more money for the club when they sell him. Suarez signed a new deal last season as well.

    ReplyDelete
  46. But Jamie, if Suarez was not on £250k a week over 5 years then we would have gotten nowhere near what we did for him hence FSG making him our most expensive player in December 2013 as they knew he wanted to leave and if he was previous wage he would have gone for less than half of what he eventually did.

    ReplyDelete
  47. No, you're just an apologist for player greed, and this post is more rationalisation/justification for rampant player power.

    I don't have a glorified view. I don't believe that this is the way football 'could be' - I'm well aware that won't happen. The point is, fans don't just have to bend over and accept it; fans can voice their displeasure, and rail against the greed.

    Instead, like you, most fans just give-up and make excuses.

    Just imagine if, historically, marginalised groups adopted your approach. 'Yeah, well, that's just the way it is - there's no point moaning about it because everyone thinks this way'.

    Slavery would still be rife; women wouldn't have voting rights, and we'd all probably be speaking German.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Bale wasnt on anything near 250k a week it didnt hurt his value.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Sorry, but the tenuous connection you make between salary level and transfer fee has no foundation in fact. It's all speculation. Clubs pay whatever they think a player is worth.

    ReplyDelete
  50. When you have a high income theres ways and means around taxes i doubt they would pay anywhere near 50 percent.

    ReplyDelete
  51. No problem, I thought it was off, that is why I am asking..

    ReplyDelete
  52. But Bale did not have a history of biting other players and being involved in racial abuse situations etc. He was Spurs highest earner though.

    ReplyDelete
  53. It is more sad than funny, but that is what he said..

    ReplyDelete
  54. Exactly. The idea that salary is directly linked to transfer fee is tenuous at best.

    ReplyDelete
  55. He has been finished for years he will take any glory hoping to hold onto his tenuous grip on another big pay check coming.
    He has conned a lot of people for years

    ReplyDelete
  56. Coz you bite other players you must have a big salary to be offloaded that makes no sense.
    In fact if his contract came into it he would probably be worth more the lower it is thus the new club not needing to offer as much.

    ReplyDelete
  57. You pay your best player the highest amount
    Sterling is more valuable then Sturridge because he never gets injured
    so he should earn more then Sturridge at 150k

    ReplyDelete
  58. @ Karim. I'm 38, I've been supporting Liverpool since 1983. I come from a family that's been blue and red for generations. I saw both these players many times over the years.

    Owen was the definition of a mercenary and was a limited footballer who never achieved anything significant in the game. His career fizzled out amid injury and recrimination. He was a wonderful young player but like thousands of others just never developed. He was more interested in gambling and horses than football from day one.

    Fowler after a couple of good seasons squandered his remarkable gifts. He did not *ever* have the application of Sterling. Like the rest of the squad at that time, his career was tarnished by an unprofessionalism which is virtually unimaginable under the present management, and which seems very far away from the serious and dedicated persona Sterling cultivates.

    Sterling shows every sign of going on to achieve top honours in the game. He has already been Golden Boy, which personally I think is a tin pot but which others seem to think is significant. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he added further personal and team honours as his career progresses. He is a remarkable talent, who seems a model professional, and to hear him compared unfavourably here with players who ultimately wasted their gifts just astonishing, considering he is at the very dawn of his career.

    Liverpool legends aren't always excellent players. You can be a fan favourite and a distinctly ropey player. Hell you can be a fan favourite *because* you are a distinctly ropey player. Djimi Traore is a Liverpool legend isn't he. But I know who I'd rather have in my side!

    ReplyDelete
  59. So should the guy that sweeps the floors and empties the bins he is never injured either.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I don't understand why Sterling would want to stay at our mid table club
    he is gonna waste his career like Gerrard did and win nothing
    Chelsea or City should be Sterlings goal.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Sterling is our only quality player bar Coutinho and Sturridge
    the rest would not get into any other top 7 team

    ReplyDelete
  62. I do not quite understand. So If he was earning let's say £80k a week before FSG renewed his contract then Barcelona will offer Suarez £100k a week and pay us £70m for his services.


    They would be laughing at us when his contract at £80k a week is not even worth half of £70m.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Im not sure Brendan Rogers gets involved in negotiations with players wages, Im sure there are people employed by Liverpool to do that, how would he have the time to coach every day if he had to sit down with agents to argue about players contracts? Is Stirling an average player? is any player worth 100K a week? if a club is making hundreds of thousands off the back of that player then yes maybe they are worth it? watching Stirling playing in most of his games he looks to me to be showing drive, passion and hunger to succeed (jsut needs to succeed in scoring more, but he is trying), there are other players in our squad that dont show half the drive, passion or hunger that Stirling shows. If the reports are true about his wage demands (the papers never tell lies do they?) then I say no he is not worth that type of money yet,he still has a lot of work to do to prove himself.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Because Liverpool is bigger than City and Chelsea and are actually a respected club throughout the world?

    ReplyDelete
  65. What so if Messi was on a 100k per week no one would offer 100 million.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Respected by who ? liverpool fans yes
    everyone else laughs at us
    you cant say anything insulting to chelsea fans other then call them "plastic" and talk about our history
    while they can say we never won a title , we are living on our past glories etc

    ReplyDelete
  67. My point is Sterling deserves a club that can win leagues
    so by paying him more we will be compensating for his lack of trophies

    ReplyDelete
  68. are you aware we were actually winning the title last season?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Patrick Ó Fearghasa4:11 pm, January 05, 2015

    This is good news for Liverpool, but honestly, Sterling isn't good enough right now to be asking for 100k, yet. If you watch him, he makes so many little mistakes and his shooting has been below average. If he asked for 100k then I have to agree with Jamie and it's very greedy. 100k is for top experienced players that worked hard through their career to earn it. Sterling should be just happy that at a young age he gets start every week.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Never won a title?! you're cute;-)

    ReplyDelete
  71. To use Messi as an example is pointless. He is on far more than £100k a week so whover wants to sign him will pay a VERY hefty fee and Barcelona have made sure of that.

    ReplyDelete
  72. This is so egregiously nonsensical that it's pointless wasting time arguing the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  73. please shut up

    ReplyDelete
  74. are you aware we have not won a serious trophy for 9 years ?
    Are you aware we are below southamton the team we took their best assest and even west ham?
    are you aware we are the laughing stock of the champions league?

    ReplyDelete
  75. I'm sorry but your wrong. Once a contract has been signed a player can't leave the club, it's illegal. Therefore the ball is in our court. Whether we wanna renew his contract sell him, or let him run it until it's expiration, that's the club's choice not sterling's. I'm not saying he's not gonna leave for 5 years once he's signed, because that's not what contracts are for anymore, but what it does mean is that if he wants to leave, and we want to sell him, we WILL get compensation.


    The whole Suarez saga proved it!! He was desperate to go to Arsenal, we didn't want him to go, so we said no despite his 'buyout clause', made that choice, put up with a moody player for a month or so, then we got the best season of his career to date out of him (where he got us back in the champions league) then we sold him on our terms for more money.


    It's pure and simple, contracts are worth something, once signed they give value and ownership of the player, how that's dealt and negotiated with, is purely down to how strong and clever the club holding the contract is.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Hahaha,, Unbelievably annoying..

    ReplyDelete
  77. why are you "wasting" your time at our mid table club then? do you think if you asked Gerrard if he wasted his career at "our mid table club" (the one he won many tophies and made a lot of money at) he would say yes I've wasted my career at this mid table club,Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the only thing Gerrard didnt win with "our mid table club" was the league,.....thats not a bad career.....Gerrard won nothing what a strange thing to say?... jeeeez.....of with ya to chelsea or city...that should be your goal sham....sy

    ReplyDelete
  78. truth hurts
    Raheem Sterling and Coutinho are too good to be playing with Lambert and Allen
    do you really think they want to fight for 6th place every year ?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Its not pointless the fact is if they are worth it some one will pay it i do not see how you get this notion a big contract changes anything.
    They stop paying them when they leave they dont keep paying while they are playing elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  80. We aren't talking about a socioeconomic political issue here. To make your point by comparing what a player of a game is making in wages to a legitimate social issue such as women's rights is at best disappointing and at worst incomprehensible that you could stoop to such depths to try and get your point across. I lean towards disappointing because you're obviously using it to make a point.


    But you think you don't use hyperbole?


    Liverpool Football Club is privately owned by FSG and publicly supported by fans. And at its heart of hearts, the club/game is a form of entertainment and a business. If you don't like what the club does, stop watching, stop cheering, stop buying merchandise, stop buying tickets, stop administering a website dedicated to discussion of the team, and start picketing. I choose not to waste my time with such a fruitless venture.

    This is not life or death. This is not akin to slavery or genocide. Simply put your issue with what a player makes in wages is not a serious one (relatively speaking to the examples you subsequently brought up; again I know it's hyperbole but my point remains the same about the fact that you even use this to exaggerate your point in the first place).


    People/fans actively choose whether to participate in supporting a team. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head.


    If you disagree with an owner's decision on what to pay a player, that's all fine and dandy.


    I don't necessarily even disagree with your point of view on overpaying him. I agree that we did overpay him.


    But I accept why the team paid him and I accept why he negotiated to get as much money as possible.


    You can complain about player greed and whatnot, but at the end of the day, it's a business for both the club (owners) and the players. For every successful negotiation where the player and club agree, there are exponentially more unsuccessful negotiations where the club won't pay (e.g.: Johnson, Glen)

    ReplyDelete
  81. Yes, you're clearly right. That must explain why players *never* leave clubs until their contracts are up. It also explains why no player have ever forced a move mid-way through a contract.

    ReplyDelete
  82. a premier league ?
    No one cares about the football league

    ReplyDelete
  83. So what you are saying JK is that Liverpool should not have offered the asking amount for Sterling?
    And then he leaves for pittance. The club has lost it's investment.
    Lets not forget, Sterling knows that he is not the type of player who will be peaking at age 25. Fast players don't cut it past 26. He has to milk the cow now when it is still primed.
    I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles, and we have to accept it. Loyalty is a rarity in footballers.

    ReplyDelete
  84. It's still Xmas and we very well can overtake west ham and co. By your logic, Ancelotti must have killed himself when Atletico won the league. Please at least TRY to COMPREHEND the greatness of a team is not defined by their current standing in the table.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Mate, Messi is on a reported £16m a season.


    Why on earth would Barcelona be that crazy to pay him £330k a week? Just because another club is going to offer him more money? Let's say Chelsea come knocking now, they will have to deal with a player who is earning £16m a season.


    Barcelona will be smiling all the way to the bank.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Which is my whole point of... it's up to the club to decide whether to pay him or not.


    After all, anyone can go and ask for a raise; it's up to the bosses to decide to give it to them. And if the employee claims if he doesn't get the raise, he's going to leave, then it's up to the bosses to decide his value to the company.


    This really is not that complicated.

    ReplyDelete
  87. As I clearly said in my first comment, I never said it doesn't mean players can't leave, I was simply stating contracts aren't worthless, as you said, because they give the club power to do what they want to do with the player, and if they want to sell, it gives them power to negotiate compensation.


    Not really sure how many times I've got to explain that.

    ReplyDelete
  88. O.K you dont get it explain how we paid 35 mill for Carroll when he was on about 30k p.w or thereabouts at Newcastle.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Then get rid of Allen and Lamberts- No?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Carroll is English and we signed him on deadline day plus we had just sold Torres for £50m. Mike Ashley...

    ReplyDelete
  91. im laughin keep the jokes going Loges hes English thats gold.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Well would you have paid £20m for Downing?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Only if he promised to do the housework.

    ReplyDelete
  94. its a shame to see this happening, I've watched this kid since he arrived from qpr, and could'nt wait for him to break into the first team...and now this, but it's the way of football (and other sports) now, I agree with most of what you say Jaimie (if the reports are true) except I think that its the agents that are to blame, not so much the fans, after all the more money a player gets usually means the more money his agent gets

    ReplyDelete
  95. Mate i am a lfc fan all my life i will support us in league 2
    even if we went to administration in 2011
    Sterling grew up as a Man utd fan he joined us at 15 because that was what is BEST FOR HIS CAREER
    Sterling does what is best for his career he plays for teh ultra rivals of his boyhood club
    Sterling should always do whats best for hsi career and i think that is to join a team competing for titles although i hope he can do it here

    ReplyDelete
  96. Exactly my point. Would Barcelona have payed £20m for Downing?

    ReplyDelete
  97. They would have payed it but wouldnt have paid it.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Yes as you've mentioned no loyalty its all about the money.

    ReplyDelete
  99. This is the entire point that people keep twisting: Why would Sterling leave for a 'pittance'?

    Liverpool can pay Sterling £70k a week, and then refuse to let him leave (like with Suarez).

    That's why LFC should've done (IMO). Handed him a £70k a week contract, and said 'take it or leave it'. Sign, or we sell you.

    Liverpool would then have the power, and if Sterling refused to sign, then make him see out his contract on £40k a week (or until the club decides to sell)

    Liverpool could also sell Sterling now for some ridiculous fee, and there are clubs out there who will pay it.

    The fact he's on £70k a week makes no difference.

    ReplyDelete
  100. And I can guarantee you hat if Suarez was on call it £80k a week he would have gone for half of what we eventually sold him for. Remember the £40m buyout clause? FSG made the best move to make that some almost double by making Suarez sign a new contract.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Are we seriously Jaimie asking for loyalty from players, why should Sterling have loyalty to liverpool?
    he owes us nothing


    Liverpool as a club is not loyal to its players look at what happens with Agger and Reina two players loyal to us we shifted them out
    if sterling suddenly started bad for a sustained period would lfc show him any loyalty . no it would be straight to transfer list


    lfc showed no loyalty to Carroll,Aqualani,Borini,Adam,Konschesky
    we got rid of them made tehm leave because of their poor form
    Sterlins therfore entilted to screw with liverpool because of ou rpoor form

    ReplyDelete
  102. The only vital point is length of contract thats it and as for Downing well Barca and Bayern arent sure who he is.

    ReplyDelete
  103. No, LFC are well renowned for overpaying for players who are not worth their transfer fees.

    ReplyDelete
  104. At 40K a week, does he have a release clause of 31mil? I doubt it. But with a new contract I;m sure The club has the bargaining chip. It;s always about the club's return on investment.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Borini is still here you know

    ReplyDelete
  106. Well according to you its because of the big contracts the bottom teams are paying them before they sell.

    ReplyDelete
  107. yes but has been treated awfully
    after refusing to be forced out of lfc

    ReplyDelete
  108. Goes back to my point of paying £20m for Downing. Would Barcelona pay £25m for Lallana or £75m for Suarez who is on £250k a week?

    ReplyDelete
  109. hes here for money after all we will never win anything according to you

    ReplyDelete
  110. I guess he should play along side with Cotinho. 2 pacefull strikers on top, Sterling and Cotinho feeding them together with 2 run in wingers(Moreno and Manquilo/Marcovic). Sterling with Cotinho has the ability to penetrate through players, one with skills(Cotinho) and Sterling with pace. Hope to see BRodgers bring in Lavezi....game on for us.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Let me think Europes best striker last year or two dills i reckon blind Freddy has that one covered.
    You and i both know they are not in Barcas league as players.

    ReplyDelete
  112. he is here to play for a good club
    but when you have abilities of Sterling and Coutinho you have to as Torres say "play at teh highest level"

    ReplyDelete
  113. Well in that case we could have kept Suarez on £80k a week, Barcelonacould have offered him slightly more and offered us how much?


    WTF is the point of FSG then renewing Suarez contract at £250k a week for 6 months when they knew he wanted to leave?


    Answer carefully.

    ReplyDelete
  114. They tried to keep him up till Chiellini incident you know that, also the longer the contract the better the hold players often run them down.
    Also Suarez was on 120k p.w and it was raised to 200k.

    ReplyDelete
  115. But he doesn't play and his highest level was at Sunderland which is where he should've stayed.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Lallana ruled out for a month
    recall Ibe now

    ReplyDelete
  117. Should we give a kid with no left foot 100k a week? Hell no. Specially as we 'invented' him. But..
    Fergie told young Macheda he can have 10k a week or hit the road. Why? Because he knew that if the kid stays, the club benefits, but if he leaves the club can get somebody proven who will contribute regularly, and that the kid won't be missed.
    Again, no left foot, no cross, not the best of finishers, but... One of our best assets(or we hope he will become), and we have no chance of signing Willian, Hazard etc...

    ReplyDelete
  118. Suarez wanted to leave, it is that simple. If we had kept him on his original wage he would have gone for less money as his contract would have been worth less.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Cant belied Lallana is injured
    just what we need when we are 8th in the league
    season going from bad to worse

    ReplyDelete
  120. Its a new genre called edge of your seat comedy if you dont like it stick your loyalty you little hypocrite wheres yours to the rest of the team and Rodgers and FSG.

    ReplyDelete