12 Jul 2015

Done Deal in 24-hours: Liverpool finally seal mega-transfer for 'brilliant' £44m attacker

The end is nigh! After months of shameless disrespect for Liverpool FC, it looks like Raheem Sterling is finally set to leave Anfield.

According to The Mirror today:

* Liverpool have accepted Man City's £49m offer for'brilliant' Sterling.

* Details: £44m up-front, with £5m in performance-related add-ons.

* Liverpool and City are in 'advanced negotiations' over the deal, and the transfer is expected to be be completed in 24-hours.

* The Reds have withdrawn Sterling for the squad for the upcoming pre-season trip to Australia.

If The Mercenary is out of the squad, this can mean only one thing: a deal is imminent, and the sooner it happens, the better.

After this sorry affair, I'd be surprissed if Sterling has any supporters left in the fanbase.

Liverpool legend Mark Lawrenson is the latest ex-Red to slam the The Mercenary, and in his column for the Liverpool Echo this weekend, he scathed:

"Sterling continues to give a textbook example of how not to leave. Almost everybody wants him out of Anfield.

"If a player doesn't want to play for us, then he is more than happy to go. Sterling is being so badly advised it is untrue."

The only negative about dumping Sterling is that QPR will get 20% of the transfer fee, a figure confirmed by ex-QPR Chairman Gianni Paladini in June 2014.

When asked for details about Sterling's £500k transfer to Liverpool, he told Get West Sport:

"Rangers will get 20% [from] the sell-on fee, not that QPR probably need it right now. The new owners have more money than ever existed in my time. Still, a £40M sale nets them £8M—not bad for a 15-year-old, eh?"

Paladini was in charge at QPR when Liverpool signed Sterling, so he'll obviously know the finer details of the agreement.

If Liverpool sell Sterling for £45m, the club will lose £9m of that fee to QPR, and end up with a final balance of £36m. Not bad for a player who cost £500k, but ultimately, it's just another example of Liverpool's perennial penchant for being fleeced on transfers.

A 20% sell-on clause is ridiculous, and it's hard to believe that someone at LFC actually sanctioned that. I'd like to blame it on Ian Ayre, as it sounds like just the type of negligent clause he'd negotiate, but, alas, Ayre had nothing to do with transfers back in 2010.

Based on the club's statements at the time, it seems like the blame lies with former Managing Director Christian Purslow, and ex-Academy Chief Frank McParland.

£36m is still a good chink of change, though, and will allow the Reds to splash out on a top-class striker. Hopefully, it won't be used to activate Christian Benteke's £32.5m release clause.

Author: Jaimie K


Post a Comment