Raheem Sterling

[Livedk]

Just because he has no resale value doesn't mean it's a bad buy if he performs, which Debuchy may well do next year.

ohh that wasnt my point - I rate Debuchy a lot - my post was directed at bigblue who thinks 45 mil for sterling is pissing money away and is everything thats wrong with football.

same with Luke shaw.

I will back both of those buys to in the end be cheaper than Debuchy if they decide to sell them.

Same with Aguero vs Giroud - we paid 14 mil they paid something like 35 mil I think - looking at their current values Aguero would have been the cheapest option while also being a much better player.

 

[Livedk]

Why compare Sterling and Debuchy?

Giroud vs Aguero
Shaw vs Debuchy

take your pick

the point remains - sterling at 45 mil will very likely end up either making them money or cost less than 7 mil a year over the course of his contract.

 

[ArsenesNO1Fan]

from a business point of view it isnt that bad of a signing - in 3 years he could very well be worth 100+ mil - chances are he will never be worth less than 30 even if he somehow starts to decline and I am sure they got insurance in case of injury/death whatever.

He'll have to learn to kick a ball properly first. Ask the Q 'what he'd be worth if he wasn't English' and you're talking 10m to 20m right now

Debuchy over four years will very likely end up costing us a lot more money than Sterling will city or Shaw will united.

when estimating prices the expected value the player will have in the future is a major part of it

Debuchy will have no value come the end of his contract he will have been paid 70k/week = 14,5 mil in total 26.5 mil for 4 years of service

Lets say sterling actually do get an insane amount - 130k/week thats 27 mil over 4 years + 45 in transfer = 72 mil over 4 years

so if they in four years can get more than 45,5 mil for him - his 4 years would have been cheaper than Debuchys services was to us.

Your maths is off here, firstly Sterling is going to be 180k to 200k, so over 4 years that's 37million to 41.6million plus signing on fee, plus 45million so let's say 85million over 5 years.

Now after 4 years they have to either extend his contract or sell him. If they extend they'll continue to pay him 10 million a year so he's still costing much more.

I can't see anyone else wanting to pay 45million for Sterling in 4 years unless he improves. He's currently a project player and not a top player. If he improves to the level Sanchez is currently operating at, something I see as unlikely they'll get 45m off a rival. But even if he does he'll still have cost 40million over 4 years, which is more.

Shaw will cost 21million in wages and 30million in fee. If he extends he will still cost 21million a year, if he's sold he most likely will have failed and be sold for half the fee. Shaw is currently not as good as Debuchy but is costing significantly more.

 

[A_G]

LFC Fans Corner ‏@LFCFansCorner
Raheem Sterling will earn around £200,000-a-week at City. [Express - Paul Joyce]

He better hit the ground running, a lot of pressure on him.

 

[Livedk]

lol and you say my math is off - and there is just no way they are paying close to those wages.

Sterling wanted to leave and is currently on 35k I would be shocked if he actually gets a penny over 100k - I took the 130k because thats what most wants to believe.

why would they ever pay him that kind of money when he wanted to leave and they were his only option - they would pay him more than Aguero and Yaya ? and massively more than nasri.

thats just never going to happen

the reported 200k is taken from twitter and regurgitated by the media

 

[GDeep™]

He had a multiple year deal at Liverpool, plus new contract offer, City are desperate too - Sterling could demand any wage he wants.

 

[GDeep™]

Who knows, maybe other clubs were interested too.

 

[A_G]

The £200k a week was reported by Paul Joyce who covers Liverpool for the Express and was apparently the first to break the news that Sterling will miss the tour.

And City would definitely pay him that much because he's HG. They gave Dedryck Boyata a £78k a week deal for that very reason.

 

[ArsenesNO1Fan]

lol and you say my math is off - and there is just no way they are paying close to those wages.

Sterling wanted to leave and is currently on 35k I would be shocked if he actually gets a penny over 100k - I took the 130k because thats what most wants to believe.

why would they ever pay him that kind of money when he wanted to leave and they were his only option - they would pay him more than Aguero and Yaya ? and massively more than nasri.

thats just never going to happen

the reported 200k is taken from twitter and regurgitated by the media

Every source has reported 180k to 200k yet your make believe figure is correct. OK mate. Yes they'll pay 200k because they're Man City and desperate for HG players, that's the only reason anyone goes there and 200k a week is on par with other 45m buys.

And no Yaya and Arguero are on more than that

 

[GDeep™]

He was settled at Liverpool, City tap him up, and he'll be willing to move if City break the bank.

Sterling isn't having this war for 100-130K a week.

 

[Livedk]

sure - he makes more than Aguero and Yaya - christ that is obviously just never the case.

did he start out asking 300k and they haggled him all the way down to only 200k ?

and now he was suddenly happy at pool with his 35k/weeek.

sure - guess that is what happens when people starts to believe whatever goal.com and twitter users writes

 

[2m53s]

Forgive me for not reading the whole thread. If it's still about Sterling then I would have to say I don't rate him that highly. He's a decent enough young player but I'd sooner wait five years to see how he does. My guess is he won't amount to much.

 

[GDeep™]

Not too fussed by the way, I really like him, but such money for a guy who needs 3 years or so to still develop into a top player, is too much.

You're paying a top finished player fee, for a project.

 

[2m53s]

I concur.

 

[Plutarch]

Giroud vs Aguero
Shaw vs Debuchy

take your pick

the point remains - sterling at 45 mil will very likely end up either making them money or cost less than 7 mil a year over the course of his contract.

That doesn't address my point.The notion that Man City are somehow better at financial dealings than Arsenal is simply untrue. N0 one thinks that. They've thrown billions at building a team, fair enough if they've got it. That doesn't make them astute in their finances, they're anything but.

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

Chris Willock is bigger talent anyways...

I will take this well!

 

[bingobob]

Sterling is a smashing player and I think @Livedk makes some very good points. We also can't complain about the English fee when we paid 16m for a division 2 player with 20 games under his belt or paid 16 to pluke another kid from Southampton reserves.

What was the fee reported for Draxler 30 to 35m add on the English tax then 45 is probably about right.

To explore what @Livedk says if Sterling progresses the way everyone expects, and remember Wenger likes this guy and he was Liverpools best player and second best the season before, you would expect him, bar injuries, to continue to develop. Playing with Aguero and Silva should allow him to play with the freedom he had when Suarez and Sturridge where on fire. So using those assumptions he could in the future be sold for more than he cost, or he could stay for 10 years and help City win trophies, both makes his signing worth while. Look at United they invested heavily in Rooney and Ferdinand they won multiple leagues and the Champions league and now look at the revenue United bring in through sponsorship etc.

 

[Livedk]

That doesn't address my point.The notion that Man City are somehow better at financial dealings than Arsenal is simply untrue

you do know that wasnt my point - I commented on Sterling at 45 mil was insane money. My point was that I think he is a safe bet even at that price.

He will be the biggest English player for years to come - even if he somehow dosnt develop properly he will still command a big fee if sold.

they could very well end up making money on him worst case he will cost them 8-9 million each year if they sell him for 30 mil in 4 years.

thats not all that expensive when compared to what we pay for debuchy over his 4 years. (or a lot of other players)

Sterling is a gamble sure but even if he fails isnt that expensive and he could very well go on to be something special.

Most agreed Aguero was too good a player to ever fail and he was still very young - that made him a good buy - Sterling will be an English international and is one of the best young players out there - that makes him a good buy,

Mangala was a young defender playing in a poor league for which they overpaid massively - that was an insane buy - defenders just dosnt command that kind of money unless they are actually proven and got the right age.

what city did with the Sterling buy is what Wenger has done the last many years - Gibbs- Walcott- Ox etc - he just tries and get to them before they make a name for themselves.

ox isnt anywhere near as accomplished or complete as sterling is - yet nobody inhere would even consider selling him for less than 30 mil - and not even then.

 

[field442]

Just read he's getting 200k a week. So £45m fee + £50m over a 5 year contract. Absolutely ridiculous amount of money to invest in him.

 

[qwerty99]

from a business point of view it isnt that bad of a signing - in 3 years he could very well be worth 100+ mil - chances are he will never be worth less than 30 even if he somehow starts to decline and I am sure they got insurance in case of injury/death whatever

Debuchy over four years will very likely end up costing us a lot more money than Sterling will city or Shaw will united.

when estimating prices the expected value the player will have in the future is a major part of it

Debuchy will have no value come the end of his contract he will have been paid 70k/week = 14,5 mil in total 26.5 mil for 4 years of service

Lets say sterling actually do get an insane amount - 130k/week thats 27 mil over 4 years + 45 in transfer = 72 mil over 4 years

so if they in four years can get more than 45,5 mil for him - his 4 years would have been cheaper than Debuchys services was to us.

so the question is - will sterling be worth more than 45 mil in four years ? if so they would have gotten a pretty sweet deal and if he goes on to fulfill his potential the sky is the limit for his value down the road.

you might think it is insane to pay that kind of money for him but compared to us buying a guy like Debuchy they are doing a hell of a lot better money-wise than we are. its actually us who are spewing money by trying to be frugal.

every year we got Debuchy is more expensive than every year they got sterling.

they also paid a lot for Aguero and we paid less for Giroud - guess who made the best signing moneywise if they decided to sell. and yes considering their current values Aguero was a much better buy - even at the price they paid they will make money if they decided to sell him - we wouldnt on Giroud.

so in fact we ended up with the worst striker and paid the most for him by trying to save money. That is insane - what city did with Aguero and what they are doing with Sterling isnt.

agreed we should match whatever City are offering and let Sterling decide where he wants to go.