Summer Transfer Speculation and Shit.

[Niall_Quinn]

Theo is nowhere close to Sterling tbf. Besides Sterling is 20 and has a great opportunity to improve. I am afraid the same cant be said about Theo... at 26, he is just an average injury ridden player whose best attribute is his pace. May be Sterling wants to play competitive football and its 'not all about the money' for him. Both are motivated by money, just like how we all are, so I could care less even if it is 'all about the money' for him.
As for the clubs you said he'd want to join, you are right... I think 90% of the top players in the world would give an arm and leg to play for those teams but if Sterling is remotely intelligent, he knows that right now he will not start for any of them. At Arsenal, he has a great chance.

IMO, if this happens, it'll be one of the best deals we would do this summer.

Well if Sterling is so much better than Theo, why wouldn't he start for the gypos? Theo certainly would. Navas is a glaring weakness in that team. Both Sterling and Walcott would start over him.

I have watched Sterling a few times this year. Not wanting to tempt fate, seeing as we play them next, he's half the player he was last year and that probably has a lot to do with the huge hole Suarez left that Rodgers tried to plug with wasters like Balotelli. Players like Sterling and Walcott need good players all around them then they both deliver pretty much the same type of game. I don't think Sterling would be an upgrade for us over Walcott. Even if he was it would be minimal and it sounds like he wants an awful lot of money for the narrow margin. The sort of money that would maybe run us into problems with our existing top earners.

I don't see the benefits of Sterling to Arsenal and I don't see it as likely either.

[selassie]

Seems "Young Raheem" as Brenton Rodgers likes to say has had his head turned. It will be Citeh or Chelski, their the only clubs in PL stupid enough to throw silly money at him/Liverpool. I personally quite like Sterling, I think he is a very good young talent, I don't believe we are seriously in the running for his signature though, I think relations between us and the Dippers aren't so good after the Suarez fiasco and I very much doubt they will be willing to entertain offers from us....at least not the offers they would hope to get.

He'll end up rotting on Chelski or Citeh's bench.

[Japan Shaking All Over]

Seems "Young Raheem" as Brenton Rodgers likes to say has had his head turned. It will be Citeh or Chelski, their the only clubs in PL stupid enough to throw silly money at him/Liverpool. I personally quite like Sterling, I think he is a very good young talent, I don't believe we are seriously in the running for his signature though, I think relations between us and the Dippers aren't so good after the Suarez fiasco and I very much doubt they will be willing to entertain offers from us....at least not the offers they would hope to get.

He'll end up rotting on Chelski or Citeh's bench.

Maybe if we offer another two quid over the release instead of one......we might be on to something?

[selassie]

Maybe if we offer another two quid over the release instead of one......we might be on to something?

One pound and a penny TBF

[Globalgunner]

Forget Sterling, forget Walcott. Reus is the player we should be targeting, worth every penny and twice the player any one of them will ever be.

[Power n Glory]

I didn't mean loyalty and gratitude to the club, that concept vanished when the Americans and Russians arrived. Before that even, when that grubby crook Murdoch was allowed in. Hardly a surprise when you look at FIFA, UEFA and the FA, organisations dedicated to feathering nests. At the top level the game is lost and has been for years and I agree that it would be unreasonable for a player to have any affinity with that sort of shit.

I'm talking about the fans and their relationship with the players and vice versa. There's nowhere near enough emphasis placed on the role the fans play in the game. Without the fans there's nothing, no big sponsorship deals because they wouldn't make sense, no TV deals because nobody would watch and no player contracts because nobody would be paying to get into the stadium. This is what has been taken for granted as the fans have been relegated to a supply and demand equation. This leaves players with a choice. I mean senior players because of course youngsters will want to make it as far in the game as possible and that will inevitable mean changing clubs to progress. Same goes for players seeing out their careers who can't necessarily remain at the top level. With the established players though who have worked their way to a decent contract at a top flight club, there needs to be at least a passing consideration for the fans or else don't come at all. Cut to the chase and go to some mercenary outfit instead.

I hear what you are saying when you ask why should players be prepared to kick something back when the owners and associated hangers-on are scraping out everything they can. It's a fair question. This is the choice, take a huge salary and be loyal to the tribe (not the shitty Russian owner) or take an even bigger salary and abandon ship for a new tribe. Don't expect to be taken seriously when you pick the latter option. There are no part-time memberships on offer, or at least there shouldn't be.

But, like I said, I doubt such considerations will enter into these negotiations.

Most players speak highly of the fans, thank them for the support and pay the due respect but they don't owe us anymore than that IMO. I highlighted the above point because we have a manager that monitors the players peak condition and will asses whether he gives a new contract based on that. (Not Diaby of course). When they turn 29 he's already eying up potential replacements and you'll soon be in the pay as you play bracket. That sends the wrong message because the players know they're only good to the manager in their prime and once he's got what he wants out of them, they're discarded. Where is the loyalty in that? It's pretty brutal so it sets up a 'get what you can' mentality. It was even worse when we were paying peanuts for wages. I just don't see how or why the players should remain loyal in that sort of set up. If treated properly and there was life beyond your playing career, helping players get into coaching and other areas of the game, maybe they'd be more loyal. Maybe.

[Niall_Quinn]

Come on, even their 'peanuts' are 50 x the wages the fans take home, let's not get carried away by their plight. I'm not asking them to make huge sacrifices, just pay a bit of regard for the fans. Maybe take a second or two each day to see it like the fans see it. Isn't it also true that genuinely top players play? The most mercenary manager in the world can't afford to keep Messi on the bench. You look at the likes of Sterling and you have to wonder. The kid has been offered a fortune to sign up long term for the club he's made his name with, playing in a stadium full of fans that worship him. What's to think about, in reality? There's no decision to be made provided you keep your feet on planet Earth. The decisions created by agents are artificial and entirely focused on loot. It's obscene and there's no genuine excuse for it.

Now if Liverpool were offering him a fiver and a bag of chips or they insisted he play in goal but only on Thursdays, yep move along. But if all you're talking about is a manager who has to manage athletes in a highly competitive sport worried his pacey front man has lost a yard of pace now he's 29 years old, is that unfair? It's sport. At the top level. These realities for part of the rationale trotted out by players when trying to justify their excessive earnings. It's a short career, the reality of the environment. It has nothing to do with loyalty.

We hate John Terry and rightly so. But the guy has to be doing something right at his age to have earned his latest bumper contract. I think it's a bit sad when the majority of players when measured against the likes of John Terry come up short in terms of service to the club and the fans. Terry, Gerrard, Adams, Sterling. Who's the odd man out? (no racism) Where will Walcott sit in that list. If he ends up charging around in a chav shirt that'll be a bit sick won't it? What's so awful with his current situation? He should stay and fight for his place and enjoy the fortunes and the adulation. And so should Sterling.

[Power n Glory]

Come on, even their 'peanuts' are 50 x the wages the fans take home, let's not get carried away by their plight. I'm not asking them to make huge sacrifices, just pay a bit of regard for the fans. Maybe take a second or two each day to see it like the fans see it. Isn't it also true that genuinely top players play? The most mercenary manager in the world can't afford to keep Messi on the bench. You look at the likes of Sterling and you have to wonder. The kid has been offered a fortune to sign up long term for the club he's made his name with, playing in a stadium full of fans that worship him. What's to think about, in reality? There's no decision to be made provided you keep your feet on planet Earth. The decisions created by agents are artificial and entirely focused on loot. It's obscene and there's no genuine excuse for it.

Now if Liverpool were offering him a fiver and a bag of chips or they insisted he play in goal but only on Thursdays, yep move along. But if all you're talking about is a manager who has to manage athletes in a highly competitive sport worried his pacey front man has lost a yard of pace now he's 29 years old, is that unfair? It's sport. At the top level. These realities for part of the rationale trotted out by players when trying to justify their excessive earnings. It's a short career, the reality of the environment. It has nothing to do with loyalty.

We hate John Terry and rightly so. But the guy has to be doing something right at his age to have earned his latest bumper contract. I think it's a bit sad when the majority of players when measured against the likes of John Terry come up short in terms of service to the club and the fans. Terry, Gerrard, Adams, Sterling. Who's the odd man out? (no racism) Where will Walcott sit in that list. If he ends up charging around in a chav shirt that'll be a bit sick won't it? What's so awful with his current situation? He should stay and fight for his place and enjoy the fortunes and the adulation. And so should Sterling.

Just last season you were saying Walcott wasn’t a footballer and we should get rid of him. This is where I have a problem. The players are easily dispensable to the manager and fans when it suits them but flip it around and people go crazy. There is no true loyalty. Also, you know I’m not comparing the wages of a footballer to the average fan. I’m comparing our club to our rivals. I don’t know why the player has to consider the fans when it comes to negotiating wages? You think a Tesco worker has to stop to consider the paying customer when he’s looking to move jobs or seeking a pay rise? Would you?

[Özim]

He was useless for England yesterday, England got a lot better when he went off.

[Niall_Quinn]

Just last season you were saying Walcott wasn’t a footballer and we should get rid of him. This is where I have a problem. The players are easily dispensable to the manager and fans when it suits them but flip it around and people go crazy. There is no true loyalty. Also, you know I’m not comparing the wages of a footballer to the average fan. I’m comparing our club to our rivals. I don’t know why the player has to consider the fans when it comes to negotiating wages? You think a Tesco worker has to stop to consider the paying customer when he’s looking to move jobs or seeking a pay rise? Would you?

Now you are equating a Tesco worker with a footballer. These comparisons don't stand up at all.

It was the season before last, when Walcott was genuinely holding out for cash and trying to dictate his role in the team. BUT, he stayed. Some sort of compromise was reached and he remained an Arsenal player. He could have got more in chav or gypoland and they would have taken him. So that's a positive and demonstrated there must be more to Walcott than just the cash. if he opts to stay again then we are approaching the idea I'm talking about.

I'm not saying he should allow the fans to vote on what he's paid or if he stays or goes. What I'm saying is he's where he is today in part because of those fans (and this can't be denied) and it's right to factor this into his decision making process. Why wouldn't it be? When he was growing up as a kid if you said to him he'd be playing for Arsenal and taking home £100Kpw wouldn't that represent a dream come true? Shouldn't the focus now be on football, breaking into the starting eleven, giving all he can in return for the massive privilege he enjoys? That's the bit that's missing.

I don't think players feel privileged, rather they appear entitled. He's got enough now, surely? Time to start earning those wages rather than looking for the next pay day. I'm not saying this is what he's doing, all we have is press speculation. I'm talking generally about any player that has reached the top level of the game. Why shouldn't they repay the debt they owe or at least acknowledge there is a debt? The fans are the ones kicking in all this cash, where would the players be without the fans?

We're talking morals and principles here. Okay, so maybe these don't apply for greedy owners and overfed club executives and the players who are paid way beyond their abilities. Fair enough, most of these people don't have the character to appreciate their circumstances. That doesn't mean the fans need to go along with it. It escapes me how any fan could simply accept this behaviour as being excusable just because it is prevalent.

What would happen if fans started behaving like players? What if everyone shifted to being a gypo at the end of last season and nobody turned up for any other club? Would the clubs and players rapidly going out of business be sitting there accepting that shit like this happens and it's normal and reasonable? Would they be applauding the plastic army queuing outside the Ethiad? Rather they'd say the disloyal fuckers have ruined the game and they'd be right.

So what keeps a fan at a club through thick and thin? Is it rational or sensible to support Crewe for your entire life? What are they ever going to win? What keeps the fans there? Tribalism and loyalty keeps the game alive and it should cut both ways. I don't insist on players sticking with a club for life, although I do see that as the absolute ideal. But the fuck you, thanks for the cash now I have another badge to kiss routine doesn't sit with me under any circumstances. I can't envisage any argument that could sufficiently apologise for it.

I'll say it again. Players like Terry and Gerrard are putting the rest to shame in this respect and that's embarrassing.