30 Mar 2015

Next Transfer? Liverpool chase 'exceptional' £12m Barcelona star who wants Anfield move

Over the summer, Liverpool were heavily linked with a move for on-loan Barcelona star Alex Song, and many fans were disappointed when Brendan Rodgers failed to pursue the deal. Earlier this month, the Daily Mail claimed that Song 'believes' he will sign for Liverpool this summer, and new reports suggest that the Reds are still monitoring the coveted midfielder.

According to the Mail on Sunday:

* West Ham have 'cooled' on the idea of signing £12m-rated Song.

* Manchester City and Liverpool are still interested in signing Song.

In a recent column for the Daily Mail, ex-Red Jamie Redknapp hailed Song as 'outstanding', and suggested that his performances 'are the reason West Ham [reached] third in the table' earlier this season. He enthused:

"He [Song] is exceptional. Who is going to take him at the end of the year? He [Song] will have a lot of options come the end of the season when his loan from Barcelona comes to an end".

Anfield legend Jamie Carragher is also a fan of Song, and in a recent interview, he enthused:

"Big, powerful and versatile, Song would definitely give an edge to any midfield. He was suited to the physical side of the game when he was here with Arsenal".

When asked recently about his future, Song - who reportedly earns £140k a week at West Ham - told reporters:

"For now I don't know what's happening [about my future] other than that I just want to play, help the club and then we'll see at the end of the season."

The Barcelona deal always seemed like a strange move to me; Song is clearly more suited to the Premier League style of play, and with Barca's huge array of top quality players, Song's chances of attaining a regular, long-term starting role at the club seem slim.

I still can't understand why Rodgers didn't snap him up during the summer. Song is arguably the type of midfielder needed in the squad, and he probably would've hit the ground running at Anfield and made an immediate impact (just as he has at West Ham).

That said, West Ham's form has nosedived over the last couple of months, and Song's influence appears to be waning, which is one of the (alleged) reasons that the Hammers are reluctant to sign him on a permanent deal.

It looks to me like Song has grown weary of playing for West Ham, and given the teams for whom he's played in the past, that is understandable. it doesn't mitigate a perceived lack of effort and/or loss of motivation, though, and that's something the Reds will have to consider.

Should Liverpool sign Song in the summer, or stick with Lucas and Joe Allen? One thing's for sure, I'd prefer to see the Reds bring in Song over James friggin' Milner.

Author:



25 comments:

  1. There is no doubt Gerrard would have won the EPL if he had moved to Chelsea long time ago. The managers Gerrard have worked under are the ones who have been coughing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The thing is Jaimie, there are no new developments in the Sterling situation. Talks have been suspended until the summer, therefore NO offers are being made and NO offers are being turned down. You and others make out that with every day that passes without him signing a new contract, his betrayal gets worse.
    He's a young boy who's head will be filled with all sorts from the club and his advisors and its affecting his performances so he's called time on the whole thing until the summer. If he ends up signing a new deal with us (which I believe he will), then he will have lost out on a significant amount of money by waiting til the summer to sign. Maybe then you'll retract some of your mercenary views but I seriously doubt it

    ReplyDelete
  3. Analogy


    əˈnaləjē


    noun
    a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The problem his ,How important ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Who cares if his talks are suspended till the summer? It makes no difference whatsoever. Sterling could've signed a new deal already, but he hasn't. Why?

    He wants more money. Plus, he's probably waiting to see if Liverpool qualify for the Champions League, and then hoping in the meantime that Liverpool relent, and/or interest from another club can become concrete.

    And once again, you try and absolve Sterling of responsibility by blaming it on machiavellian outside influences putting ideas in his head.

    Sterling is an ADULT, not meek little child; he knows the score, and everything that happens with this contract process is sanctioned by him.

    And he will not lose out on any money by waiting till the summer; he will probably demand that it's backdated, therefore retrospectively lining his pockets.

    If Sterling gave a damn, he would've signed a new contract already. The only way he'll prove he's not a mercenary is by signing the alleged £100K-a-week deal that's already on the table.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Read the definition again: the key part is 'on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification'.

    It's not a direct, literal comparison, which is my point.

    ReplyDelete
  7. All I did was provide a definition of the word "analogy" after you claimed "analogies are not comparisons" (your words, not mine).


    Take it as you will.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why is a £100k the right figure?


    Because that is what the club has reportedly offered?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Liverpool probably have some kind of wage structure in place, so if Sterling is being offered less than the structure dictates for a player of his age, then he'd be entitled to contest it.

    I sincerely doubt that's the case, though. At the bare minimum, I imagine Sterling is currently on £30-£40K a week (which is already an obscene amount), and if a pay-rise to £100K-a-week (the alleged figure he's been offered) is not good enough for him, then that's disgraceful.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think its totally unfair to put the blame on a 20 year old when there are bigger parties involved in the deal. There's been no mention of FSG or what they have actually offered. If we dont make top 4 FSG may want to sell him to cover potential losses.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Whatever is on the table is likely to be an obscene amount of money, so why wouldn't he accept it.

    For argument's take, let's say he's being offered £70k a week; why is that not enough?

    Only a greedy, ungrateful, egotistical 20-year drunk on their own exaggerated hype would have the chutzpah to reject a weekly wage that would take many people 3-5 years to earn.

    Oh, but I forgot: Sterling works about 2-3 hours a day and then relaxes the rest of the time. I forgot how hard a footballer's life is. My bad - he clearly needs £100K+ per week.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This season? Our most important player, without a doubt

    ReplyDelete
  13. So you are saying that employers should decide what employees earn ?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tell me if I'm wrong here as I'm going to use this quote as a summary of your stance:


    "so if Sterling is being offered less than the structure dictates for a player of his age, then he'd be entitled to contest it"


    Based upon what you're saying, Sterling should be paid based upon his age, not his talent? So all 20 year-old players should make the same amount?



    Because Sterling is 20, and Fabio Borini is 23, Borini should be paid more? Regardless of talent level?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Are you for real?

    Of course employers decide what employees earn; that's the standard in the working world. In most cases, there are pay scales in place; employees have reviews, and based on performance, they employer grants a pay rise (or not in some cases).

    Employees generally don't just walk into a manager's office and demand a 500% pay rise, and then hold the company to ransom until they get it. In most cases, that would end with the sack.

    Only in the twilight zone of football (and some other professional sports) and acting (at the elite level) is this different.

    ReplyDelete
  16. No, you've misunderstood my point.

    The structure may dictate that players of his age earn 'X', but there may be further allowances for specific achievements (i.e. call-up to the national team); targets met (goals/assists)' or a myriad of other things that go towards the actual salary level.

    Lots of teams have wage structures (Arsenal, for example), and within that structure, there will be scope for higher salaries for players of the same age based on achievements/development etc.

    ReplyDelete
  17. But that's the catch: We're in the twilight zone here. This isn't normal every-day work or life. This is a sport making billions every year and it's increasing in spite of a poor global economy.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ok, yes. I agree with you from that standpoint of the structure.


    The key here though is that there simply aren't as many 20 year olds considered to be on Sterling's talent level.

    So you can be upset that a 20 year old player is asking for more money that we can comprehend, but he's just playing to the market that is present.


    The club owners and transfer market are the problem. Not Raheem Sterling.


    After all, you and Stuart are on to something below here about employers deciding how much to pay players.


    We are in the twilight zone that exists in only a few industries (football being one of them).


    The problem is that all it takes is one owner to cave and throw money at a player. It's a domino effect. Then all of a sudden another says "well look what he's making and I'm better than him, so I deserve a raise", and so on an so forth.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The fact is though it is market driven .


    The best teams earn more money and can pay more for the best players who in turn produce the best teams that earn more money.


    There is also a tension between owners and players sharing the proceeds and competing with other entertainment industries for market share to increase income and maximise profits.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Exactly.


    It's not the player's fault someone out there is willing to spend more on him than his current employer.


    The player simply has to live up to his contract until it expires or until the club sells him.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Also the reason I am not too critical of any player trying to get the best deal they can is because the club always has a choice.


    But the player's career and earning power could literally end in an instant at any time.

    ReplyDelete
  22. And harsh on Jack

    ReplyDelete
  23. And as cheap as chips

    ReplyDelete