Topic: Liverpool's Midfield

[Anywhichwayicant]

Actually I prefer what we actually are doing, which is offering amazing wages to our best players which are within our budget. We've a team which are CL qualification quality. The last few years (minus the odd blip) has shown that, and when we're bringing in the income of a CL side then our players will reap the rewards of that via their per-negotiated wage bonuses.

You don't spend money you don't have, as when the cards fall the whole deck goes with it.


Risking the club in the chase of added income is a fools game, hello Mr Hicks 

We are more than capable of paying Sterling. You'd think we were paupers.

When's the last time we had a talent like him come through?

Hello, Mr. Savage 

[CraigDS]

The going rate for who might turn out to be the Premier League's all time top scorer? It probably is, yeah.

So given he is what, the 3rd best paid player in the world, you think this is his going rate?

What other 20yr olds are on £150k a week seems this is the going rate?

[Halcyon Lissome]

The issue is you cannot just do it for one player and not expect others in the squad to follow suit. The only exception is when that one player is a universally recognised world class talent - i.e. Gerrard of the past and Suarez in recent seasons.

It's the others following suit that we cannot afford, the numbers are there to see and back this up.

I think people have to keep in mind that when you pay Sterling such a figure, it's not really putting the wage structure in danger. He's probably the best or 2nd best player in the squad. If we have a squad performing similarly to Sterling to be able to argue for such a wage; then that means we're probably winning stuff on the pitch.

If the plan was to overpay on purchase price to bring in excellent young talent; then the other side of it should be to pay good wages once they reach a certain level to keep this team intact.

The way I see it, we can add 1-2 really good additions for a few years and as most of our players are really young and go through their maturity; we'll have a team that will win titles. When you have a team performing the way ours has with 20-22 year olds, when they turn 25 you have the potential for dynastic success.

So given he is what, the 3rd best paid player in the world, you think this is his going rate?

What other 20yr olds are on £150k a week seems this is the going rate?

Well you have a problem there mate...there are no 20 year olds as good as him so how can you compare? You don't compare age; you compare output and impact. And he is arguably the best player in a team that is one of the best in arguably the best league in the world.

[CraigDS]

We are more than capable of paying Sterling. You'd think we were paupers.

When's the last time we had a talent like him come through?

It doesn't really matter if he is coming through or not, he isn't at a level where he is worth £150k a week. Giving it to him because his agent held out and played hard ball when there was a £130k a week offer on the table sends out a fucking shocking message to the rest of our squad - one which we cannot afford.

No one is saying we are paupers, but at the same time we are no Chelsea, United or City when it comes to income either.

Hello, Mr. Savage 

Was it due to my flowing blonde locks?

[Cpt_Reina]

The issue is you cannot just do it for one player and not expect others in the squad to follow suit. The only exception is when that one player is a universally recognised world class talent - i.e. Gerrard of the past and Suarez in recent seasons.

It's the others following suit that we cannot afford, the numbers are there to see and back this up.

So we should never pay good players good money to avoid others trying to get more out of us?

[tommy LFC]

Stand a much better chance of getting those seasons with a player of Sterling's calibre in our team than without him.

We have it well within our capablities to pay outstanding talent's the money they'd get elsewhere, Sterling is one such example of a player worth making the exception to our general approach.

What about Can? When his agent inevitably demands close to parity with Sterling if he continues his impressive form next term? What message does it send to Ibe - how much will his agent demand? How much will Sturridge think he can squeeze out of us? When we go to sign Marco Reus or whoever and they see Sterling on 150k, how much will they want?

Where does it end? I would argue this is why Henderson hasn't signed yet - "If Raheem can get 150k, how much can I get?!"

[CraigDS]

So we should never pay good players good money to avoid others trying to get more out of us?

Since when was £130k a week for a 20yr old not good money?

[CraigDS]

Where does it end? I would argue this is why Henderson hasn't signed yet - "If Raheem can get 150k, how much can I get?!"

Exactly what I was saying to someone yesterday. His agent will be sat there thinking 'I'll let Sterling's guy do all the work for me, he can get all the bad press, then I'll come in and saying the new club captain deserves parity, or close to it'.

[Cpt_Reina]

Since when was £130k a week for a 20yr old not good money?

So that extra 30k is the breaking point is it? You'd accept £120k but not £150k?

[CraigDS]

So that extra 30k is the breaking point is it? You'd accept £120k but not £150k?

It's not JUST that much extra, as apparently we've upped our first offer to this amount and he is still asking for £150k (apparently).

Even IF it's just another £20-30k, it only takes the next 4 or 5 renewals doing the same and getting the same added extra (ignoring that it's potentially £60k a week over what we wanted to pay) and that's another £8m on the wage bill each season, £40m over the life of their contracts.

That's before new signings start doing the same.

[Haggis36]

If the plan was to overpay on purchase price to bring in excellent young talent; then the other side of it should be to pay good wages once they reach a certain level to keep this team intact.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this in principle, the argument here is the level Sterling is currently at and how he is remunerated for it.

Suarez from the day we bought him was one of the biggest talents in the world and always looked like he'd go on to be world class but we didn't give him £200k off the bat, his pay increases were staggered in line with his contribution and performances.

I'd be more than happy for us to pay Sterling £150k, £200k, £300k a week when I think he's earned it and is at that level, but he isn't yet. Give him a raise to reflect his current level (personally I think £100k is absolutely fair) and then renegotiate and increase it in a year when he reaches the next level.

[Cpt_Reina]

It's not JUST that much extra, as apparently we've upped our first offer to this amount and he is still asking for £150k (apparently).

Even IF it's just another £20-30k, it only takes the next 4 or 5 renewals doing the same and getting the same added extra (ignoring that it's potentially £60k a week over what we wanted to pay) and that's another £8m on the wage bill each season, £40m over the life of their contracts.

That's before new signings start doing the same.

So what?

If he's worth it, he's worth it. We've thrown money at Gerrard over the years and that worked out pretty well for us.

£150k is the new £100k.

We paid fucking Reina, Joe Cole and Glen Johnson that sort of money never mind the most talented player to come through our system since Gerrard and arguably the most talented in the world for his age.

Revenues have gone up, therefore the wages go with it.

[Cpt_Reina]

If lesser talented players start demanding parity or a wage above their talent/station then who cares? Those are the ones you play hard ball with and risk losing, cos after all who cares. They're not *that* good.

Doing it pre-emptively with your best talent/players is putting the cart before the horse.

[ThePoolMan]

The club has been steadily bringing the wage bill down. Somehow I do not think they will jettison their entire model to pay a 20 year old player 150K a week because that will mean that Coutinho and Henderson should get almost as much and Sturridge will then demand to be at 200K. And then all the others will get in line for a wage increase.

You want 150K, you jolly well prove that you are the world's best young player by scoring more than 30 goals a season. If you can score that kind of goal tally, then i am sure that the club will gladly pay you 150K a week. Until then, shut it.

[ThePoolMan]

So what?

If he's worth it, he's worth it. We've thrown money at Gerrard over the years and that worked out pretty well for us.

£150k is the new £100k.

We paid fucking Reina, Joe Cole and Glen Johnson that sort of money never mind the most talented player to come through our system since Gerrard and arguably the most talented in the world for his age.

Revenues have gone up, therefore the wages go with it.

Well he's not worth it. Gerrard was truly one of the world's best. Sterling is far from that - he wouldnt get into the first team of Real Madrid or Bayern Munich or Barcelona.

[Red Genius]

He's an exceptional talent and so far as dribbling forwards go, we've probably had to wait since Macca to have one promoted through the ranks, and the two we have currently in Raheem and Ibe, were both brought in at the latter stages of their YTS development for significant outlays at such an age (which demonstrates how difficult it is to acquire top players even at such a young age)

For me, the reported wage (and we dont know for sure the true value of what has been offered and how its broken down) 150k is a big contract for a 20 year old, any 20 year old. Infact 99.9% of professional footballers will never earn that value in contract. So the question we have to be certain of, is whether he is worth that in his present form and ability. As Brendan highlighted its ongoing between club and reprensentatives, and likewise he looks settled here and i assume an agreement will be met.

He's almost a litmus test for the club, our strategy has been to procure and develop young talent, and Raheem is possibly the first in this cycle to challenge where the club invisage a player of a certain age should be in terms of reward and player arguing performance and ability dictate that structure. One thing is for certain, an outcome that benefits the club is the under riding importance, and for me if you have a strategy to acquire the best young, develop them into top class players there will ultimately be a cost (wages) and that is the compromise against spending large fortunes on transfer fees. So to be reluctant to invest in wages at the top end in combination with top end transfer fees will ultimately mean we will not have top class players. This was designed to circumvent the fact we're not financially top hitters in transfer fees, i think thevclub have to find a resolution to retain Raheem to demonstrate the strategy we're implementing is ultimately a way forward for success on the pitch.

[ThePoolMan]

He's an exceptional talent and so far as dribbling forwards go, we've probably had to wait since Macca to have one promoted through the ranks, and the two we have currently in Raheem and Ibe, were both brought in at the latter stages of their YTS development for significant outlays at such an age (which demonstrates how difficult it is to acquire top players even at such a young age)

For me, the reported wage (and we dont know for sure the true value of what has been offered and how its broken down) 150k is a big contract for a 20 year old, any 20 year old. Infact 99.9% of professional footballers will never earn that value in contract. So the question we have to be certain of, is whether he is worth that in his present form and ability. As Brendan highlighted its ongoing between club and reprensentatives, and likewise he looks settled here and i assume an agreement will be met.

He's almost a litmus test for the club, our strategy has been to procure and develop young talent, and Raheem is possibly the first in this cycle to challenge where the club invisage a player of a certain age should be in terms of reward and player arguing performance and ability dictate that structure. One thing is for certain, an outcome that benefits the club is the under riding importance, and for me if you have a strategy to acquire the best young, develop them into top class players there will ultimately be a cost (wages) and that is the compromise against spending large fortunes on transfer fees. So to be reluctant to invest in wages at the top end in combination with top end transfer fees will ultimately mean we will not have top class players. This was designed to circumvent the fact we're not financially top hitters in transfer fees, i think thevclub have to find a resolution to retain Raheem to demonstrate the strategy we're implementing is ultimately a way forward for success on the pitch.

I think it is a different issue altogether. If you want a wage of that magnitude, you should be one of the highest scoring players in the league.  If you area pocket Ronaldo or Suarez or Messi, then 150K is not a problem. But when you have not brought home the bacon and you demand the best slice of steak, then that's a little over the top.

[CraigDS]

So what?

If he's worth it, he's worth it. We've thrown money at Gerrard over the years and that worked out pretty well for us.

He's worth a great wage, don't disagree on that. He's also worth being one of our best players, don't disagree on that.

Personally think £130k (after bonuses) is the level he is at though, and would make him the highest paid 20yr old in world football, probably the highest paid player under 23.


Stick in some bonus payments linked to CL qualification, stick in a guaranteed increase in 18 months to £150k a week subject to certain conditions.

£150k is the new £100k.

We paid fucking Reina, Joe Cole and Glen Johnson that sort of money never mind the most talented player to come through our system since Gerrard and arguably the most talented in the world for his age.

Yeah, and it nearly crippled us, thanks for perfectly proving my point.

Wages in that last season were at 70% of revenue (69% the season after) which is a massively unsustainable level. Dumb and Dumber chased the extra revenue with big wages, and it fucked up royally and we've been paying for it ever since. The only good thing that came from it is it made paying their debt impossible (it would of been if they'd of kept control of the wages) and forced them out.

Revenues have gone up, therefore the wages go with it.

Wages have gone up, and are now sat at a sustainable 56% of revenue as they should be.

What we can't do is bank on having CL revenue currently and pay 56% of that income (approx £16-20m in wages, would be higher next season) to our players when we may then not get that income.

[Cpt_Reina]

Well he's not worth it. Gerrard was truly one of the world's best. Sterling is far from that - he wouldnt get into the first team of Real Madrid or Bayern Munich or Barcelona.

He'd probably get in Bayern's very soon once Ribery and Robben are moved on, them both being the wrong side of 30 and all.

And that's what we're trying to prevent.

[ThePoolMan]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this in principle, the argument here is the level Sterling is currently at and how he is remunerated for it.

Suarez from the day we bought him was one of the biggest talents in the world and always looked like he'd go on to be world class but we didn't give him £200k off the bat, his pay increases were staggered in line with his contribution and performances.

I'd be more than happy for us to pay Sterling £150k, £200k, £300k a week when I think he's earned it and is at that level, but he isn't yet. Give him a raise to reflect his current level (personally I think £100k is absolutely fair) and then renegotiate and increase it in a year when he reaches the next level.

+1

[Anywhichwayicant]

He's worth a great wage, don't disagree on that. He's also worth being one of our best players, don't disagree on that.

Personally think £130k (after bonuses) is the level he is at though, and would make him the highest paid 20yr old in world football, probably the highest paid player under 23.


Stick in some bonus payments linked to CL qualification, stick in a guaranteed increase in 18 months to £150k a week subject to certain conditions.

Yeah, and it nearly crippled us, thanks for perfectly proving my point.

Wages in that last season were at 70% of revenue (69% the season after) which is a massively unsustainable level. Dumb and Dumber chased the extra revenue with big wages, and it fucked up royally and we've been paying for it ever since. The only good thing that came from it is it made paying their debt impossible (it would of been if they'd of kept control of the wages) and forced them out.

Wages have gone up, and are now sat at a sustainable 56% of revenue as they should be.

What we can't do is bank on having CL revenue currently and pay 56% of that income (approx £16-20m in wages, would be higher next season) to our players when we may then not get that income.

Wrong. Paying players that weren't worth the money almost did it.

[Cpt_Reina]

What about Can? When his agent inevitably demands close to parity with Sterling if he continues his impressive form next term? What message does it send to Ibe - how much will his agent demand? How much will Sturridge think he can squeeze out of us? When we go to sign Marco Reus or whoever and they see Sterling on 150k, how much will they want?

Where does it end? I would argue this is why Henderson hasn't signed yet - "If Raheem can get 150k, how much can I get?!"

If Hendo wants to try and get a similar deal than fine, he wont, but fine.

Sterling is performing at a similar, if not higher, level than Hendo already despite being what? 5 years his junior? Sterling is 'worth' much more to us.

Its much easier to find another Henderson than it is another Sterling.

[CraigDS]

Wrong. Paying players that weren't worth the money almost did it.

The accounts cannot differentiate between if a player is worth it or not - the fact is we ran the gauntlet of paying players over and above their value and came up losers.

[ThePoolMan]

He'd probably get in Bayern's very soon once Ribery and Robben are moved on, them both being the wrong side of 30 and all.

And that's what we're trying to prevent.

The cards are in our favour currently. If we stick him in the reserves for the best two seasons that will destroy his potential and ruin the rest of his career and growth ceiling. It is in his best interests to sign a new contract for a more sustainable level.

But if you capitulate to his demands, then next season he will come back to renegotiate for 180K a week or 200K a week. And then the year after he will sulk and force a move anyway. If he wants to go, he will go.

[CraigDS]

If Hendo wants to try and get a similar deal than fine, he wont, but fine.

Sterling is performing at a similar, if not higher, level than Hendo already despite being what? 5 years his junior? Sterling is 'worth' much more to us.

Its much easier to find another Henderson than it is another Sterling.

It doesn't matter if he doesn't get parity, but if he gets £30-50k over what the club wanted to pay initially then it's a massive amount. Same for the next guy. And the next guy. And 3 of the 5 we sign in the summer. etc.

[Caston]

I don't think it's a good thing a club bowing down to players/agents demands, no matter how good they are. I'm with the club on this one

[ThePoolMan]

If Hendo wants to try and get a similar deal than fine, he wont, but fine.

Sterling is performing at a similar, if not higher, level than Hendo already despite being what? 5 years his junior? Sterling is 'worth' much more to us.

Its much easier to find another Henderson than it is another Sterling.

Why shouldnt he? He is the captain. He assists about as much as Sterling and is at least as important to the team. Why should a 20 year old outearn him when he has not clearly outperformed him by a sufficiently wide and clear margin yet?

It wont be as easy to find another Henderson as you may think. How long did it take Henderson himself to break through? And to conquer a bad start?

[Red Genius]

I think it is a different issue altogether. If you want a wage of that magnitude, you should be one of the highest scoring players in the league.  If you area pocket Ronaldo or Suarez or Messi, then 150K is not a problem. But when you have not brought home the bacon and you demand the best slice of steak, then that's a little over the top.

He's almost a litmus test for the club, our strategy has been to procure and develop young talent, and Raheem is possibly the first in this cycle to challenge where the club invisage a player of a certain age should be in terms of reward and player arguing performance and ability dictate that structure.

we're actually in agreement, i simply outlined the protracted argument for both parties and how it fits into our overall strategy.

[ElstonGunn]

Why shouldnt he? He is the captain. He assists about as much as Sterling and is at least as important to the team. Why should a 20 year old outearn him when he has not clearly outperformed him by a sufficiently wide and clear margin yet?

It wont be as easy to find another Henderson as you may think. How long did it take Henderson himself to break through? And to conquer a bad start?

Probably for the simple reason that Sterling is much better, but what do I know. It's almost like there's more to this game than how many goals and assists a player has in one specific season. Sterling would fetch literally double Henderson if we sold him. There's a reason for that.

And I say this as someone who rates Henderson massively these days,

[ThePoolMan]

Wrong. Paying players that weren't worth the money almost did it.

If we pay Suarez type salary to a player who doesnt score more than 1/3 his goals, then what will the other players do? They will demand the same wage increases. You say no to them, the same logic applies. A fairer way to do it is to hnge salary increases to the performance. You want 150K a week - sure, score more than 30 goals a season and add more than a certrain number of assists, and you get 150K backwages added back in pro-rated at the end of the season. Otherwise you stay at 90K.

I have no issues with the club paying Suarez 200K a week - he clearly deserved it and was a bargain even at that price. What I have an issue with is paying a player wages he has not yet earned. And Sterling has not earned 150K a week yet.

[Koparoo]

 These arbitrary lines in the sand... "he's only worth  £xxxk a week!"... are fatuous. We have a strategy of buying young and building reputations. We have to pay accordingly when we get it right - as we sooo have with Sterling.

Surely the real business decision is - do we want to keep 'our' Sterling for the next 3 or 4 years (and agree to pay him what, £150k a week?)...

Or do we search for (and hopefully find) his equal talent (supposing we can) and fend off all our competitors and pay what, a £40m - 50m transfer fee and then agree to pay Sterling Mk II a 'lesser' £120k a week - and pat ourselves on the back for 'saving' £30k a week - and meanwhile hope that he fits in to our team as well as Sterling has???

Where is the logic in that? An extra £30k a week is less than amortising a £6m transfer fee over 4 years. (And just think of all the dross we have bought for that sort of amount...)

Haven't we already saved plenty by buying Sterling at an early age and putting him through our Academy? We can afford to be 'generous' in an exceptional case like his (and hopefully Ibe's and Oji's and Sinclair... and.... etc). That was the whole purpose - to unearth that talent at a bargain (acquisition) price - not a bargain wage!! We should be paying our Academy successes 'more' than outsiders -that will help us attract the best talent!!!!

[ThePoolMan]

These arbitrary lines in the sand... "he's only worth  £xxxk a week!"... are fatuous. We have a strategy of buying young and building reputations. We have to pay accordingly when we get it right - as we sooo have with Sterling.

Surely the real business decision is - do we want to keep 'our' Sterling for the next 3 or 4 years (and agree to pay him what, £150k a week?)...

Or do we search for (and hopefully find) his equal talent (supposing we can) and fend off all our competitors and pay what, a £40m - 50m transfer fee and then agree to pay Sterling Mk II a 'lesser' £120k a week - and pat ourselves on the back for 'saving' £30k a week - and meanwhile hope that he fits in to our team as well as Sterling has???

Where is the logic in that? An extra £30k a week is less than amortising a £6m transfer fee over 4 years. (And just think of all the dross we have bought for that sort of amount...)

Haven't we already saved plenty by buying Sterling at an early age and putting him through our Academy? We can afford to be 'generous' in an exceptional case like his (and hopefully Ibe's and Oji's and Sinclair... and.... etc). That was the whole purpose - to unearth that talent at a bargain (acquisition) price - not a bargain wage!! We should be paying our Academy successes 'more' than outsiders -that will help us attract the best talent!!!!

No, the issue is paying a FAIR wage. 100K is not a bargain wage at all. If you want 150K a week, where are the league-leading goal statistics?

[Red Genius]

Probably for the simple reason that Sterling is much better, but what do I know. It's almost like there's more to this game than how many goals and assists a player has in one specific season. Sterling would fetch literally double Henderson if we sold him. There's a reason for that.

And I say this as someone who rates Henderson massively these days,

Sterling is a game changer and match winner, they notoriously are valued higher.


You look at his all round attributes and hes a tremendous proposition, possibly unique in his development cycle and experience at the highest level, at 20.

[ThePoolMan]

In fact that should be the club's closing offer - put your money where your mouth is. You say you are worth 150K a week. Prove it. Score that next season and you get your 150K a week paid to you. Otherwise you stay at "only" 100K a week.

Now that's fair.

[ThePoolMan]

Sterling is a game changer and match winner, they notoriously are valued higher.


You look at his all round attributes and hes a tremendous proposition, possibly unique in his development cycle and experience at the highest level, at 20.

When we talk about wages we are interested in what he does NOW not potentially in his development cycle. I agree he deserves 90K or 100K a week now. But 150K a week means hat he has to ramp up his performance by a lot more.

[Cpt_Reina]

People are getting far too hung up on what Sterling is 'worth' now and not looking at what he might (should) be worth in 2 or even 1 years time.

The money he wants right now might be a little over what he's 'worth' currently, it might be a lot over it, but he's not just negotiating a contract for the next season, its a multi-year deal. Probably 4-5 years.

That's what he's protecting, being paid what he's 'worth' in 2 or 3 years time when he's a much better much more established player.

We might end up overpaying for the first year or even two, but actually end up underpaying him for the final 2 or 3 years of its run.

[ThePoolMan]

People are getting far too hung up on what Sterling is 'worth' now and not looking at what he might (should) be worth in 2 or even 1 years time.

The money he wants right now might be a little over what he's 'worth' currently, it might be a lot over it, but he's not just negotiating a contract for the next season, its a multi-year deal. Probably 4-5 years.

That's what he's protecting, being paid what he's 'worth' in 2 or 3 years time when he's a much better much more established player.

We might end up overpaying for the first year or even two, but actually end up underpaying him for the final 2 or 3 years of its run.

Fine, so if he's worth that in a year's time, then we pay him that in a  year's time.  Tie the salary to performance. What is his justification to be paid Sturridge's salary levels when he has not scored as many goals?

[Haggis36]

So if Sterling changes his mind and decides, actually, he fancies £200k a week, what then? Do we just say "well we want to keep him, so we'll let him decide what he wants to be paid"? You're talking about arbitrary lines but there's structures in place for a reason.

[spider-neil]

Whilst I believe the club shouldn't be held to ransom, we really do need to break the cycle of losing our best players just when it looks like we are going to move to the 'next level'.

[CraigDS]

People are getting far too hung up on what Sterling is 'worth' now and not looking at what he might (should) be worth in 2 or even 1 years time.

The money he wants right now might be a little over what he's 'worth' currently, it might be a lot over it, but he's not just negotiating a contract for the next season, its a multi-year deal. Probably 4-5 years.

That's what he's protecting, being paid what he's 'worth' in 2 or 3 years time when he's a much better much more established player.

We might end up overpaying for the first year or even two, but actually end up underpaying him for the final 2 or 3 years of its run.

Are you honestly telling me you don't think, if he kicks on as a player as we all expect, that he won't be demanding the club renegotiate his contract in 18-24 months time, if not much sooner?

If I thought he'd be on £150k for the next 4 years then I'd give it him now in a heart beat.