Topic: Liverpool's Midfield

[ThePoolMan]

If that's how you want to twist it then yeah.

Or they could say:

"Hey, we want to pay you what you're worth so here is a £100k a week contract which is worth £26m to you over the next 5 years and is guaranteed. As with all top clubs, we want our players to push themselves to become the best they can, which of course also benefits us, so you can earn an additional £30k a week which is £8m over the 5 year contract, if you meet these achievable targets."

 

+1 that kind of offer would make a lot of sense

[Haggis36]

If you think 20 year old Raheem Sterling, who was put in a 'special school' because of his behavioral difficulties is concerning himself with the sort of percentage earnings, and cash breaks downs over image rights or performance bonuses then thats fine. I dont see it, but fine.

Personally I think he's more than happy to let someone qualified, who he trusts, handle all that stuff and just come to him with a package and say this is the best Ive managed to get you. Do you want it? Or do you want to try and get more elsewhere?

I'm almost certain he isn't - but then we're not talking (it seems) about the minor nuances of contractual payments, we're talking about a £50k difference in either basic or incentivised WEEKLY wages. I'm sure Sterling is in a position to understand those kind of figures on a gross level.

As far as I'm aware the club has already made a concrete offer, which I would have thought Ward would be obliged to take to Sterling. So that fulfills the last paragraph of your post. If Ward thinks he can get £x more a year elsewhere (which he obviously does) then he can and should tell Sterling so, but the decision is still Sterling's.

He's entitled to pursue a course that will result in more money if he thinks he can get it, just like I'm entitled to look for another job that pays more if someone tells me there are companies out there that pay more than my current employer. It doesn't matter how much advice you take, the decision is always your own.

[ThePoolMan]

But you've avoided the point I've brought and Elston has brought.

Sterling is not an out and out scorer so the comparison or insinuation that he must have the same numbers as Suarez is not relevant.

As was being argued pages ago: Sterling's per 90 output is comparable to Eden Hazard's who is earning 200k. Keep in mind that Hazard is not only playing in a superior squad, he's not asked to play all over the place (like full-back) he's also 4 years older.

So it's very easy to make an argument for him. Simply put, however, he is our arguably our best and most important player. 150k for such a player is not an arm and a leg.

There is no avoidance - there is only the fact that I disagree with you.

Nor is Sturridge "just" an out and out scorer either. He has very roughly 3/4 of Sterling's assists while playing in about only half the games. Sturridge is truly exceptional.

I am not familiar with Hazard's contract. How much was he earning at 20? If you adjust for inflation and for the club he was playing for, how m uch would he have been paid at 20? It took him that long to get to where he is. What will it do to our wage structure and Sterling's development to give Sterling most of what Gazard is being paid right now 4 years early?

[Halcyon Lissome]

If that's how you want to twist it then yeah.

Or they could say:

"Hey, we want to pay you what you're worth so here is a £100k a week contract which is worth £26m to you over the next 5 years and is guaranteed. As with all top clubs, we want our players to push themselves to become the best they can, which of course also benefits us, so you can earn an additional £30k a week which is £8m over the 5 year contract, if you meet these achievable targets."

 

I think the above shows your misunderstanding on 'worth'. A player is worth whatever a club wishes to pay him. There is no set in stone amount.

What happens is that City and Chelsea then come by and say "we think you're worth 200k over the next 4 years, don't worry about performance-based incentives; we believe in you".

So Liverpool as a club can't sit down and tell Sterling what he is worth; he is clearly in demand and can fetch more than even what he is asking from us.

People here might not like to accept it; but if anything 150k is a bit of a concession on Sterling's behalf. If he REALLY wanted to be all about the money he'd already be long gone.

[JackWard33]

You're *so* close!

LOL

[ThePoolMan]

In fact Suarez's stats are even more ridiculous and puts Sterling's financial worth in proper perspective - he had 82 goals and 53 assists in 133 matches for us!

[ElstonGunn]

"Intentionally dense"?! Why do people tend to get so personal on this forum? Are you unable to separate the discussion from making ad hominem attacks?

Newsflash - it is possible for someone to disagree with you while being actually not stupid or obtuse. How about you lay off and I will do the same?

In our free flowing system, Sterling and Sturridge play almost interchangeable roles at times. Yes Sterling has and can play even at fullback. He is more versatile. But he is primarily valued for his attacking ability - to score goals and make direct assists. His agent is comparing him to Sturridge to ask for parity or near parity. So he recognises that similarity and parallelism. It is not perfect a comparison but it is possible.

On the other hand comparing Alonso and Dzeko is so far on differing ends of the spectrum that the comparison becomes almost impossible.

Well, I actually said "intentionally," which means I don't actually think you're stupid! I just don't understand how you can dispute that it doesn't make sense to directly compare the goal and assists stats of players who play very different positions.

Sigh, so you basically made the exact retort that I said, "Don't make."
Fine, how about Mario Gomez vs. David Silva?
Gomez: 192 appearances, 108 goals, 17 assists; .65 goal contribution per appearance.
Silva: 213 appearances, 43 goals, 56 assists; . 46 goal contribution per appearance.

And yet, I'm sure we can all agree Silva is the far, far, far better player, right? Ergo this comparison just isn't very meaningful.

[ThePoolMan]

LOL

So typical of this forum. Resorting to mockery and getting personal instead of just focusing on the discussion.

[Halcyon Lissome]

There is no avoidance - there is only the fact that I disagree with you.

Nor is Sturridge "just" an out and out scorer either. He has very roughly 3/4 of Sterling's assists while playing in about only half the games. Sturridge is truly exceptional.

I am not familiar with Hazard's contract. How much was he earning at 20? If you adjust for inflation and for the club he was playing for, how m uch would he have been paid at 20? It took him that long to get to where he is. What will it do to our wage structure and Sterling's development to give Sterling most of what Gazard is being paid right now 4 years early?

You're playing with words. Sturridge's game revolves around putting the ball in the back of the net and he tends to get assists by virtue of being positioned so close to goal.

Sterling is a player who plays on the wing, up front, just behind, as a full-back, etc, and does a number of jobs on the pitch not just limited to scoring. If Sturridge doesn't score or assist; chances are he's had a bad game. Not so for Sterling. He helps the team press, keep shape, win a lot of the ball back, and also helps us keep the ball, create and from time to time to score.

If you put Sturridge as a wingback do you think he'd do well? Sterling seems to be one of the best players on the pitch regardless of where he is positioned. So just goals and assists misses the point.

In any case, as was explained to you; Sterling's numbers are basically level with Hazard (who takes penalties and always plays the most advantageous position); so by your logic he should be worth as much as him? At 21 he was getting 170k. What 'inflation'? If Sterling went to Chelsea he could get that much; it's 'reality'.

All you should care about is if Sterling is one of our best players or not. Otherwise it just comes across as trying to point-score and you're doing it poorly, with all due respect.

[CraigDS]

I think the above shows your misunderstanding on 'worth'. A player is worth whatever a club wishes to pay him. There is no set in stone amount.

I think you need to re-read what I've written, as I mention nothing about HIS worth. I mention the contracts worth (i.e. done the maths to show what a weekly amount is worth over a 52 week/5 year time period).

What happens is that City and Chelsea then come by and say "we think you're worth 200k over the next 4 years, don't worry about performance-based incentives; we believe in you".

City especially, although I also think Chelsea, do highly incentivised contracts, so what makes you think Sterling would be a special exception to them?

So Liverpool as a club can't sit down and tell Sterling what he is worth; he is clearly in demand and can fetch more than even what he is asking from us.

People here might not like to accept it; but if anything 150k is a bit of a concession on Sterling's behalf. If he REALLY wanted to be all about the money he's already be long gone.

The club can, will and no doubt have told him what they think he is worth to them, if he agrees or not is up to him and his agent.

[ThePoolMan]

Well, I actually said "intentionally," which means I don't actually think you're stupid! I just don't understand how you can dispute that it doesn't make sense to directly compare the goal and assists stats of players who play very different positions.

Sigh, so you basically made the exact retort that I said, "Don't make."
Fine, how about Mario Gomez vs. David Silva?
Gomez: 192 appearances, 108 goals, 17 assists; .65 goal contribution per appearance.
Silva: 213 appearances, 43 goals, 56 assists; . 46 goal contribution per appearance.

And yet, I'm sure we can all agree Silva is the far, far, far better player, right? Ergo this comparison just isn't very meaningful.

You did not notice my reference to treating other posters as being "obtuse"? Because that is what you did just now by calling me "intentionally dense". And again witht he melodramatic sighing by which you are again trying to paint me as being deliberately obtuse just because I do not agree with you. This is the kind of behaviour I abhor on this forum. Why dont you just stick to the discussion?

Silva is clearly the vast superior of Gomez in the assists stats that he possesses. That stat marks that quality out as showing his true worth - not in goalscoring.

[MerseyParadise]

Agreed

Seconded . we are still paying the price and having to balance the books after having a squad of players on elite contracts who delivered fuck all in the way of trophies .

Let them deliver us the leagues and cups  before they pipe up to the gaffer with thier hand out asking for more

[Cpt_Reina]

I'm almost certain he isn't - but then we're not talking (it seems) about the minor nuances of contractual payments, we're talking about a £50k difference in either basic or incentivised WEEKLY wages. I'm sure Sterling is in a position to understand those kind of figures on a gross level.

As far as I'm aware the club has already made a concrete offer, which I would have thought Ward would be obliged to take to Sterling. So that fulfills the last paragraph of your post. If Ward thinks he can get £x more a year elsewhere (which he obviously does) then he can and should tell Sterling so, but the decision is still Sterling's.

He's entitled to pursue a course that will result in more money if he thinks he can get it, just like I'm entitled to look for another job that pays more if someone tells me there are companies out there that pay more than my current employer. It doesn't matter how much advice you take, the decision is always your own.

Of course its his decision.

But if his agent comes to him and say's "here's what the club has offered, but dont worry I can get more this is still early days", Sterling is probably going to say yeah alright push it as far as you can.

Why wouldn't he?

He's negotiating from a position of power, the club will be desperate to see him stay.

[ElstonGunn]

You did not notice my reference to treating other posters as being "obtuse"? Because that is what you did just now by calling me "intentionally dense". And again witht he melodramatic sighing by which you are again trying to paint me as being deliberately obtuse just because I do not agree with you. This is the kind of behaviour I abhor on this forum. Why dont you just stick to the discussion?

Silva is clearly the vast superior of Gomez in the assists stats that he possesses. That stat marks that quality out as showing his true worth - not in goalscoring.

I'm sure your shocked, shocked to learn there's a bit of mockery on the internet, but nothing has been nearly as bad you're making it out to be with your tone-policing.

The argument is played out I can see. Best we leave it here.

[ThePoolMan]

You're playing with words. Sturridge's game revolves around putting the ball in the back of the net and he tends to get assists by virtue of being positioned so close to goal.

Sterling is a player who plays on the wing, up front, just behind, as a full-back, etc, and does a number of jobs on the pitch not just limited to scoring. If Sturridge doesn't score or assist; chances are he's had a bad game. Not so for Sterling. He helps the team press, keep shape, win a lot of the ball back, and also helps us keep the ball, create and from time to time to score.

If you put Sturridge as a wingback do you think he'd do well? Sterling seems to be one of the best players on the pitch regardless of where he is positioned. So just goals and assists misses the point.

In any case, as was explained to you; Sterling's numbers are basically level with Hazard (who takes penalties and always plays the most advantageous position); so by your logic he should be worth as much as him? At 21 he was getting 170k. What 'inflation'? If Sterling went to Chelsea he could get that much; it's 'reality'.

All you should care about is if Sterling is one of our best players or not. Otherwise it just comes across as trying to point-score and you're doing it poorly, with all due respect.

On the chelsea abilty to pay hazard more "if" he were to go there, like the Spartan was supposed to have said to Philip of Macedonia - "If".

All arguments can be distilled into exercises in point scoring. You should not try to denigrate others by negative ad hominem descriptions.

Sturridge also helps the team keep its shape, he also presses, he also has discipline in movement. Whether he is closer to the goal should not be used to make him incomparable with Sterling.

The greater versatiltiy of Sterling does not mean that he should necesarily be paid more. He is also younger and much more prone to burmnout. There are pluses and minuses. But if you compare them on the stats which give some basis of objectivity, then there can be some level of argument for a salary hike.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Seconded . we are still paying the price and having to balance the books after having a squad of players on elite contracts who delivered fuck all in the way of trophies .

Let them deliver us the leagues and cups  before they pipe up to the gaffer with thier hand out asking for more

Almost sadly, we're not in the days where the gaffer actually deals with that. He's now just focused on coaching and managing the team.

[Halcyon Lissome]

I think you need to re-read what I've written, as I mention nothing about HIS worth. I mention the contracts worth (i.e. done the maths to show what a weekly amount is worth over a 52 week/5 year time period).

But you did:

"Hey, we want to pay you what you're worth so here is a £100k a week contract which is worth £26m to you over the next 5 years and is guaranteed."

It means the package you've constructed for him is based on what you think he is worth.

City especially, although I also think Chelsea, do highly incentivised contracts, so what makes you think Sterling would be a special exception to them?

They play around with bonuses in order to have a low base contract to avoid pressure from FFP. Regardless; the point was that either club can come in and claim Sterling is 'worth' more and basically shit on our evaluation. So there is no set-in-stone value to Sterling; it just depends on what clubs are willing to pay.

I think we all know full well that 150k is peanuts for certain clubs. Mind you, they'd be getting a 20 year old who is already one of the best players in the league and who is English and helps meet their quota in the CL.

The club can, will and no doubt have told him what they think he is worth to them, if he agrees or not is up to him and his agent.

That's the point of discussion here; whether what the club value him is likely to get him to sign or not. People think it's too much yet in the same breath admit he could get more elsewhere. So what do they expect Sterling to do? Sign because of what? Take less money and not go to a club that is virtually guaranteed to challenge for titles to stick with Liverpool? A club that is gonna pay him less and is no guarantee to consistently challenge for titles?

Again, people can't see the woods for the trees. Sterling is not an everyday player; he is an exceptional talent who we might need to make exceptions for. However, thankfully, he is not asking for the Hope diamond.

snip

Let's just get to the point; do you or do you not think Sterling is one of our best players? Comparable to Sturridge? Or is it just about goals and assists with you?

[JackWard33]

You did not notice my reference to treating other posters as being "obtuse"? Because that is what you did just now by calling me "intentionally dense". And again witht he melodramatic sighing by which you are again trying to paint me as being deliberately obtuse just because I do not agree with you. This is the kind of behaviour I abhor on this forum. Why dont you just stick to the discussion?

Silva is clearly the vast superior of Gomez in the assists stats that he possesses. That stat marks that quality out as showing his true worth - not in goalscoring.

Just fyi the 'assist' stat is one of the stats most subject to variance and statistical 'noise' (because the number is not high and it's so subject to the finishing of the person who received the ball). It's not actually particularly useful for anything if your goal is to determine the level of a player (e.g. Sterlings two "assists" in the Man city match)

[ThePoolMan]

I'm sure your shocked, shocked to learn there's a bit of mockery on the internet, but nothing has been nearly as bad you're making it out to be with your tone-policing.

The argument is played out I can see. Best we leave it here.

You do not read carefully enough. I already made it clear I am not shocked at all - I almost expect it on this forum since too many people here cannot divorce their ego from the discussion.

I prefer to talk about the points. There is no profit in mutual insult exchanging, only mutual loss. 

[ThePoolMan]

Just fyi the 'assist' stat is one of the stats most subject to variance and statistical 'noise' (because the number is not high and it's so subject to the finishing of the person who received the ball). It's not actually particularly useful for anything if your goal is to determine the level of a player (e.g. Sterlings two "assists" in the Man city match)

Nobody ever said it was perfect. Since I have no access to better stats, that is all I can do to try to have a little mroe objectivity in looking at the question. If you have btter stats, then refer to them and give the rest of us a hand.

[Roger Federer]

People think it's too much yet in the same breath admit he could get more elsewhere. So what do they expect Sterling to do? Sign because of what? Take less money and not go to a club that is virtually guaranteed to challenge for titles to stick with Liverpool? A club that is gonna pay him less and is no guarantee to consistently challenge for titles?

If you're so certain that Sterling could get up to 200.000 at other clubs - and I'm sure that is right - why would he stay for 150.000? If he wants to go for more money, there's not a whole lot we can do about it. We know Chelsea and City pay more already, but we need to look after our club and see what wages we can afford and what we believe they are worth in our structure, not Chelsea's or City's.

[CraigDS]

But you did:

"Hey, we want to pay you what you're worth so here is a £100k a week contract which is worth £26m to you over the next 5 years and is guaranteed."

It means the package you've constructed for him is based on what you think he is worth

haha, sorry hadn't even noticed I'd written that, only thought I'd mentioned worth in the bit after that.

The package the club offer will be based on what they think he is worth to them, mixed in with a bit of what we can afford, with an eye on what it'll mean to the wage structure for other players in the squad and new players being targeted.

They play around with bonuses in order to have a low base contract to avoid pressure from FFP. Regardless; the point was that either club can come in and claim Sterling is 'worth' more and basically shit on our evaluation. So there is no set-in-stone value to Sterling; it just depends on what clubs are willing to pay.

I think we all know full well that 150k is peanuts for certain clubs. Mind you, they'd be getting a 20 year old who is already one of the best players in the league and who is English and helps meet their quota in the CL.

£200k is peanuts to some clubs. £250k is. £300k is. Where is the line drawn? Does your opinion that just because other clubs can come in and pay more so we should pay it have a limit?

That's the point of discussion here; whether what the club value him is likely to get him to sign or not. People think it's too much yet in the same breath admit he could get more elsewhere. So what do they expect Sterling to do? Sign because of what? Take less money and not go to a club that is virtually guaranteed to challenge for titles to stick with Liverpool? A club that is gonna pay him less and is no guarantee to consistently challenge for titles?

Again, people can't see the woods for the trees. Sterling is not an everyday player; he is an exceptional talent who we might need to make exceptions for. However, thankfully, he is not asking for the Hope diamond.

He is also 20, and has managed to get 120 games under his belt to aid his development into this player, but he isn't a finished product yet and needs to develop further if his target is non-financial and more to become one of the worlds best players.

Is he going to get into Chelsea's side every week? Are they going to play to a style which would develop his football?

Is he going to get into City's side every week at 20? They don't exactly have great recent history of buying good young talent and helping them progress.

United? Well...

Madrid? You think he'd get in the side there?

Barca? Well other than the fact they can't buy anyone is he going to play there regularly?

Bayern? Same as above.

PSG? Well he'd get in the side, he'd win titles in a bit of a shitty league.


So given all that, where exactly is he going to go which will both develop his career and pay him more than the deal we've put on the table, no doubt with the knowledge we'd happily (and we've shown we do this) renegotiate to higher pay as he progresses.

[ThePoolMan]

Let's just get to the point; do you or do you not think Sterling is one of our best players? Comparable to Sturridge? Or is it just about goals and assists with you?

I thought I was perfectly clear on that topic. He is not as good as Sturridge at this point in time. Not yet. He may well be in the next two seasons or exceed him. But not yet.

So either he gets paid significantly less or he gets pegged to a performance reward basis that brings him up that level if he gives that level of performance.

[ThePoolMan]

If you're so certain that Sterling could get up to 200.000 at other clubs - and I'm sure that is right - why would he stay for 150.000? If he wants to go for more money, there's not a whole lot we can do about it. We know Chelsea and City pay more already, but we need to look after our club and see what wages we can afford and what we believe they are worth in our structure, not Chelsea's or City's.

Exactly. After all why stop at 150K? Why not 200K? That tunnel goes down an awfully long long way...

[Halcyon Lissome]

If you're so certain that Sterling could get up to 200.000 at other clubs - and I'm sure that is right - why would he stay for 150.000? If he wants to go for more money, there's not a whole lot we can do about it. We know Chelsea and City pay more already, but we need to look after our club and see what wages we can afford and what we believe they are worth in our structure, not Chelsea's or City's.

Because while the world is a cynical place I do think he appreciates his manager, his teammates and the opportunity the club has given him. While he may get away with asking for 200k at another club; I think he believes even 150k is a fair compromise - he keeps his talents at Liverpool and at the same time still gets a hefty wage.

At the end of the day, 150k doesn't ruin our wage structure and it's not like he is a middling player in our team. There is more than a fair argument that he is our best player already. The only thing outlandish about this scenario is that there is even a 20 year old good enough that can reasonably ask for it. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be given it, if he is indeed at the level his talent has showcased he is.

[ThePoolMan]

Because while the world is a cynical place I do think he appreciates his manager, his teammates and the opportunity the club has given him. While he may get away with asking for 200k at another club; I think he believes even 150k is a fair compromise - he keeps his talents at Liverpool and at the same time still gets a hefty wage.

At the end of the day, 150k doesn't ruin our wage structure and it's not like he is a middling player in our team. There is more than a fair argument that he is our best player already. The only thing outlandish about this scenario is that there is even a 20 year old good enough that can reasonably ask for it. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be given it, if he is indeed at the level his talent has showcased he is.

Well I think I can log off on this note - that si where we must agree to disagree. I don't think he is at that level yet.

[MerseyParadise]

Because while the world is a cynical place I do think he appreciates his manager, his teammates and the opportunity the club has given him. While he may get away with asking for 200k at another club; I think he believes even 150k is a fair compromise - he keeps his talents at Liverpool and at the same time still gets a hefty wage.

At the end of the day, 150k doesn't ruin our wage structure and it's not like he is a middling player in our team. There is more than a fair argument that he is our best player already. The only thing outlandish about this scenario is that there is even a 20 year old good enough that can reasonably ask for it. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be given it, if he is indeed at the level his talent has showcased he is.

As soon as he gets 20 goals in a season he will be asking for 200,000 or he is off. Its modern footballers they are a gravy train to agents, entourages etc.

If you where an agent would you have your lad at a club for 10 years or would you move him every 2 and get your commision for the sign on bonus.

For what its worth i think raheem probably does like it here. He seems to have a camaradie with the other lads but i think his advisors are pulling the strings.

If he moves and we get an approriate fee for what he thinks he is worth wages wise say  £30 + million then move him on and promote Ibe and Sinclair. Id rather have players at the club who want to be here rather than those who see it as a stepping stone

[RedSoc]

Because while the world is a cynical place I do think he appreciates his manager, his teammates and the opportunity the club has given him. While he may get away with asking for 200k at another club; I think he believes even 150k is a fair compromise - he keeps his talents at Liverpool and at the same time still gets a hefty wage.

At the end of the day, 150k doesn't ruin our wage structure and it's not like he is a middling player in our team. There is more than a fair argument that he is our best player already. The only thing outlandish about this scenario is that there is even a 20 year old good enough that can reasonably ask for it. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be given it, if he is indeed at the level his talent has showcased he is.

If he is our best player, then it shows really where we are as a club. A player that is really still in a growth stage of his career, can we expect him at this stage to lead our line and attack like Suarez and Torres did before him?
Well he has this season, and look where we are as a result, amidst a quite frank crop of very poor opposition (Spurs, Utd, Everton and Arsenal to some extent).

Real terms, 80-100k is more than enough for him. 150k is quite outlandish considering he is no where near the finished article. Poor passer, poor decision maker, poor shooter. Plus points, pace to burn, good dribbling. But really so much more learning for this kid to do before commanding that size of salary.

[Halcyon Lissome]

haha, sorry hadn't even noticed I'd written that, only thought I'd mentioned worth in the bit after that.

The package the club offer will be based on what they think he is worth to them, mixed in with a bit of what we can afford, with an eye on what it'll mean to the wage structure for other players in the squad and new players being targeted.

No probs, just thought you can't avoid it: worth is a fluid thing.

£200k is peanuts to some clubs. £250k is. £300k is. Where is the line drawn? Does your opinion that just because other clubs can come in and pay more so we should pay it have a limit?

150k for us is hardly breaking the bank. If this was a 300k discussion these worries might be a bit more legitimate.

He is also 20, and has managed to get 120 games under his belt to aid his development into this player, but he isn't a finished product yet and needs to develop further if his target is non-financial and more to become one of the worlds best players.

Is he going to get into Chelsea's side every week? Are they going to play to a style which would develop his football?

Is he going to get into City's side every week at 20? They don't exactly have great recent history of buying good young talent and helping them progress.

United? Well...

Madrid? You think he'd get in the side there?

Barca? Well other than the fact they can't buy anyone is he going to play there regularly?

Bayern? Same as above.

PSG? Well he'd get in the side, he'd win titles in a bit of a shitty league.

So given all that, where exactly is he going to go which will both develop his career and pay him more than the deal we've put on the table, no doubt with the knowledge we'd happily (and we've shown we do this) renegotiate to higher pay as he progresses.

A 20 year old already having his career is probably in the top 5% of players in history. That he isn't the finished product yet already produces a product that is this good speaks even more volumes about his level and worth.

Every club in the premier league that can afford him would probably start him the majority of games, if not them all. He'd work perfectly in some of those setups too - even the most demanding, like Mourinho's (he'd be a perfect Mourinho player because of his work-rate).

The only clubs he probably wouldn't be a starter are Barca, Real and Bayern. And you have to remember we're talking about a 20 year old again, so it's even more ridiculous that you can even really talk about him in this fashion.

At the end of the day, you're not looking at this in an objective way; you simply see our club's arguments. For Sterling, he might think that managers like Pellegrini, Wenger, Ancelotti, Pep, etc, have more than enough nous to help him develop. Ligue 1 might be a shitty league compared to England; but it means he is guaranteed to go to the CL and probably get into the knock-outs most years and maybe even win it.

If you're a top player in the world at the moment and any of the above clubs come and offer you more money; why would you go to Liverpool? They're all in healthier positions with better squads or the money to very quickly have better squads. Right now even Atletico is a better destination and they don't have all that much money and you didn't even mention them in the above.

I thought I was perfectly clear on that topic. He is not as good as Sturridge at this point in time. Not yet. He may well be in the next two seasons or exceed him. But not yet.

So either he gets paid significantly less or he gets pegged to a performance reward basis that brings him up that level if he gives that level of performance.

He's not as good as Sturridge simply because of goals and assists right? What about Hazard then? Or Silva? Are they as good as Sturridge?

You also have to keep in mind that Sterling has more goals and assists than Sturridge this season. And if you think injuries are a saving grace it's not. We've paid him 150k to have him miss half the season. Getting on the pitch is the very first part of your responsibilities as a player, nevermind the goals and assists.

As soon as he gets 20 goals in a season he will be asking for 200,000 or he is off. Its modern footballers they are a gravy train to agents, entourages etc.

Sterling is such a complete player that the season he hits 20 goals he'll have a bunch of assists as well and he impacts the game even more than that. He'll be a POTY candidate. And such a player is worth 200k. So thank god we'd have him on our books to even offer him that. Because we sure as hell wouldn't be able to afford to pay one of our rivals the transfer fee (probably 50mill+) for such a talent, and then to meet his wages.

[Roger Federer]

Because while the world is a cynical place I do think he appreciates his manager, his teammates and the opportunity the club has given him. While he may get away with asking for 200k at another club; I think he believes even 150k is a fair compromise - he keeps his talents at Liverpool and at the same time still gets a hefty wage.

At the end of the day, 150k doesn't ruin our wage structure and it's not like he is a middling player in our team. There is more than a fair argument that he is our best player already. The only thing outlandish about this scenario is that there is even a 20 year old good enough that can reasonably ask for it. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be given it, if he is indeed at the level his talent has showcased he is.

It's 10.000 less than what Suarez got last spring (I think it was only this season that he was about to get 200.000). He is nowhere near that, even if he's our best player after (a fit) Sturridge. As I said, we need to look at our structure, if he wants more than 100-130.000 (or whatever the offer is) to play for us, then so be it. I don't see how that much is unreasonable considering what Suarez got  - and he was arguably top-3 in the whole world last season -  and the fact he's still only 20 years old, but let's agree to disagree here. I understand why the club don't believe Sterling to be almost as good as Suarez was last season, and then we can't offer him that kind of money, even if Chelsea and City happily would.

[CraigDS]

150k for us is hardly breaking the bank. If this was a 300k discussion these worries might be a bit more legitimate.

It doesn't matter what we can offer though - you're talking about what he can get from elsewhere so therefore if they can offer £200k do we match it? £250k? £300k?

A 20 year old already having his career is probably in the top 5% of players in history. That he isn't the finished product yet already produces a product that is this good speaks even more volumes about his level and worth.

Every club in the premier league that can afford him would probably start him the majority of games, if not them all. He'd work perfectly in some of those setups too - even the most demanding, like Mourinho's (he'd be a perfect Mourinho player because of his work-rate).

The only clubs he probably wouldn't be a starter are Barca, Real and Bayern. And you have to remember we're talking about a 20 year old again, so it's even more ridiculous that you can even really talk about him in this fashion.

You said persistent title challengers though, so pretty much limits him to those clubs. In England, as we've no idea if he even has any desire to move away from his kid and family and move abroad, that's City and Chelsea - and there are a whole load of reason you'd not go to either of them even for an added £50k a week at this stage of his career.

At the end of the day, you're not looking at this in an objective way; you simply see our club's arguments. For Sterling, he might think that managers like Pellegrini, Wenger, Ancelotti, Pep, etc, have more than enough nous to help him develop. Ligue 1 might be a shitty league compared to England; but it means he is guaranteed to go to the CL and probably get into the knock-outs most years and maybe even win it.

They may have more nous, they may not, but do they have the ability to play him regularly? Arsenal maybe, but they're not a title challenging side and haven't been for years.

If you're a top player in the world at the moment and any of the above clubs come and offer you more money; why would you go to Liverpool? They're all in healthier positions with better squads or the money to very quickly have better squads. Right now even Atletico is a better destination and they don't have all that much money and you didn't even mention them in the above.

Atletico cannot offer wages to match our own, which is why they didn't get a mention. You also said to challenge for a title regularly, which it doesn't look like they'll do.

[Halcyon Lissome]

It's 10.000 less than what Suarez got last spring (I think it was only this season that he was about to get 200.000). He is nowhere near that, even if he's our best player after (a fit) Sturridge. As I said, we need to look at our structure, if he wants more than 100-130.000 (or whatever the offer is) to play for us, then so be it. I don't see how that much is unreasonable considering what Suarez got  - and he was arguably top-3 in the whole world last season -  and the fact he's still only 20 years old, but let's agree to disagree here. I understand why the club don't believe Sterling to be almost as good as Suarez was last season, and then we can't offer him that kind of money, even if Chelsea and City happily would.

Suarez was on 200k+ midway through his last season. Sturridge is on 150k. The TV revenues have increased the money clubs have by a lot. These aren't 1-to-1 comparisons. A lot of this has to do with timing. If either Sturridge or Suarez were renegotiating their contracts today they'd be asking for 30-50k more per week - and in comparison to the going rate around the league at the moment it wouldn't even be ridiculous.

It doesn't matter what we can offer though - you're talking about what he can get from elsewhere so therefore if they can offer £200k do we match it? £250k? £300k?

Of course it matters. He wants only 150k. We can offer and afford 150k. Case closed.

You said persistent title challengers though, so pretty much limits him to those clubs. In England, as we've no idea if he even has any desire to move away from his kid and family and move abroad, that's City and Chelsea - and there are a whole load of reason you'd not go to either of them even for an added £50k a week at this stage of his career.

All those aforementioned clubs are persistent title challengers. And you're assuming something towards your argument (i.e. whether he wants to move or not) when he might indeed be prepared to leave. So it's neither here nor there as a pro for your argument.

They may have more nous, they may not, but do they have the ability to play him regularly? Arsenal maybe, but they're not a title challenging side and haven't been for years.

Atletico cannot offer wages to match our own, which is why they didn't get a mention. You also said to challenge for a title regularly, which it doesn't look like they'll do.

All of them bar Barca, Real and Bayern would play him regularly. He is already that good.

You didn't catch my point about the Atletico argument. If a player were to take less, why would he stay at Liverpool? Even Atletico at the moment is a more desirable destination. Look at the players they've got in the last transfer window. We would've killed for a Griezmann, yet we entertain losing Sterling? Sterling will end up a better player than Griezmann and what more, when he does, we wouldn't be able to afford to buy him back.

Also, Atletico are regular challengers now. Just look at their last few years.

[Ronnie1932]

 What a fuckin abortion of a thread this has become. Bunch of fuckin bedwetters.

[Roger Federer]

Suarez was on 200k+ midway through his last season.

Are you sure? I'm pretty certain it was 160.000 the season out and then 200.000 from this . Either way, 60-70% of 200.000, isn't unreasonable to give to Sterling, if we compare him to Suarez (which makes more sense than comparing us with Chelsea or City). His performances, while excellent, is still pretty far from what Suarez did last year, I'm sure you agree with that.

Speaking of timing, it's not certain that Sturridge would get as much now, after being injured for more than half a season, so I don't think that is a valid point. He got his contract while playing almost every week, and scoring a goal pratically each game. He ended up the second best goalscorer in the league, and arguably among the 5 best in general. Again, as good as Sterling is at the moment, he hasn't been at that level yet. I'm sure he will get there, but he isn't as good at this moment in time, and shouldn't get as much money either. For what it's worth, it's not like 100-130 is that far off anyway.

What is Suarez on at Barcelona by the way? Anyone know?

[Caston]

£200k a week

[Chakan]

Suarez is on 200k/w

[lionel_messias]

Just put it this way: given our model of developing talents and not buying Juan Mata-types for £38 million, can we afford to lose Raheem Sterling at 20?

No, we cannot.

You put him on a bigger contract, up there with the top 3 players at our club and in the higher echelon of the Premier League and then IF, if his lovely agents decide he needs to "larger franchise" club to play for in the next two to four years, then Liverpool are going to get a KING'S RANSOM for him.

[Roger Federer]

£200k a week

Suarez is on 200k/w

Thanks!

[Haggis36]

Are you sure? I'm pretty certain it was 160.000 the season out and then 200.000 from this . Either way, 60-70% of 200.000, isn't unreasonable to give to Sterling, if we compare him to Suarez (which makes more sense than comparing us with Chelsea or City). His performances, while excellent, is still pretty far from what Suarez did last year, I'm sure you agree with that.

Speaking of timing, it's not certain that Sturridge would get as much now, after being injured for more than half a season, so I don't think that is a valid point. He got his contract while playing almost every week, and scoring a goal pratically each game. He ended up the second best goalscorer in the league, and arguably among the 5 best in general. Again, as good as Sterling is at the moment, he hasn't been at that level yet. I'm sure he will get there, but he isn't as good at this moment in time, and shouldn't get as much money either. For what it's worth, it's not like 100-130 is that far off anyway.

What is Suarez on at Barcelona by the way? Anyone know?

Yeah Suarez definitely never actually got paid £200k while he was here, it was set to start at the beginning of this season (had he stayed) but iirc his wages went up when he signed his last contract temporarily to either 140 or 160 (can't remember which) with the intent of going up to 200.

That's the third best player in the world, who was the talk of £80m+ bids from Spain. Who was breaking all kinds of records and scoring the equivalent of a goal a game in the league. Who had five 20+ goal seasons under his belt. Who had well over 100 career goals before he even got here.

If Sterling wants the highest paid contract that will be offered to him then it's not going to be here, unfortunately. He's going to have to compromise on some level if he wants to stay.

[Nessy76]

Just fyi the 'assist' stat is one of the stats most subject to variance and statistical 'noise' (because the number is not high and it's so subject to the finishing of the person who received the ball). It's not actually particularly useful for anything if your goal is to determine the level of a player (e.g. Sterlings two "assists" in the Man city match)

I think "assists" can be a useful stat, if used correctly. Clearly, for an assist to happen involves factors outside of the player in question's control. But the same is also true of pass completion, and statos love pass completion.

For me, a good example was Downing. (Or rather a bad example.) In the "chance created" stats, he was always doing very well. He would put balls into the box into places where statistically you might expect them to lead to goals. But he got very, very few assists. And it wasn't because of any problems with the strikers so much as the fact that those were not, in fact, good balls that he was playing in.

A player who gets high numbers of assists a season, even if he's playing with a world class striker, you know he must be doing something right. A player who can't get any assists, yes, it could be that he's up front with a donkey, but even then, there are ways of playing someone in, of learning to anticipate their movement and positioning, however poor it is, where you increase their chances of scoring by giving them the ball at the right moment for them.

Chance creation sounds pretty vague, and in reality it is held up against a very specific set of guidelines, but assists cuts through a lot of the noise and deals purely in outcomes. It's not perfect, but it can be a very useful indicator.