Worst Sterling transfer ever

thebaz wrote: »

This ****ing post - if people think Sterling is worth 50 million - so be it - but I know which side of Manchester has done better business this weekend

Given that you were referring to this being the 'worst transfer ever', surely you'd be comparing this to other bad transfers, rather than obviously good ones like Schweinsteiger or Schneiderlin?

I find the argument that Sterling could turn out to be a brilliant player to be quite spurious at best. Sure, he might hit 50 goals a season for ten years and be considered a bargain at the price, but that still doesn't mean that today, here and now, this isn't an insane price for an unproven kid.

If I sign Messi for £5m, and he breaks his leg in the first game and has to retire, does that mean it was a bad decision to sign him? Of course not, the eventual outcome does not change that it was a bargain price in the first place.

This is the other end of the scale. If you vastly overpay for a player and he comes good, does that change history and now mean that it was always a good decision to overpay for him? Of course not. You take each decision on its merits

He will be the 11th most expensive player in football history having achieved sweet FA and looking just as likely to be the next Theo Walcott as he is to be the next Ronaldo. All things considered its far too much to pay for him and that will remain true no matter what happens in the future.

bucketybuck wrote: »

I find the argument that Sterling could turn out to be a brilliant player to be quite spurious at best. Sure, he might hit 50 goals a season for ten years and be considered a bargain at the price, but that still doesn't mean that today, here and now, this isn't an insane price for an unproven kid.

If I sign Messi for £5m, and he breaks his leg in the first game and has to retire, does that mean it was a bad decision to sign him? Of course not, the eventual outcome does not change that it was a bargain price in the first place.

This is the other end of the scale. If you vastly overpay for a player and he comes good, does that change history and now mean that it was always a good decision to overpay for him? Of course not. You take each decision on its merits

He will be the 11th most expensive player in football history having achieved sweet FA and looking just as likely to be the next Theo Walcott as he is to be the next Ronaldo. All things considered its far too much to pay for him and that will remain true no matter what happens in the future.

He is 20. You're not paying for what he's achieved so far. You're paying for the obvious insane talent and potential that's there, you're paying for the fact that he'll likely be a starter for the team for around 10 years, with experience of the league and homegrown status.

I don't think 50 million is a realistic transfer fee compared to what's happened in years gone by. But if you look at transfer fees this summer for young players in attacking positions.

Depay for 25 who has no experience of England or any elite domestic league and doesn't have homegrown status or Firmino for 29 who is a clear class below in terms of potential, is 3 years older, no experience of English football and no homegrown status.

To me they all look comparatively similarly overpriced, which says more about the transfer window and market we are in then the relative transfer nous of each club, not withstanding the fact that City will always have to pay more.

bucketybuck wrote: »

But you could almost have bought both Firmino and Depay for the price of Sterling! There is simply nothing realistic about that fee, there is nothing that makes him double the price of one of the hottest talents in Europe.

Which player are you talking about here? You could maybe make that statement for Depay, but I think it's pushing it.

How much Sterling could Raheem Sterling Sterling if Raheem Sterling could Sterling Sterling?

The answer is, of course, Andy Carroll.

bucketybuck wrote: »

But you could almost have bought both Firmino and Depay for the price of Sterling! There is simply nothing realistic about that fee, there is nothing that makes him double the price of one of the hottest talents in Europe.

49 isn't double of the 31 man utd paid (or will eventually pay) for depay but i digress

there is the english premium for one. last year man utd paid 32 million for shaw while liverpool paid 12 million for moreno, both played in the same position, both were young, had roughly around the same amount of experience, both were internationals but shaw went from nearly 3 times the price because he was english and had played in the premier league.

sterling has 3 full seasons of premier league football behind him whereas depay has never played in the league and the success rate of going from the dutch league to the premiership is 50/50 at best.

premier league clubs have their tails up because they know the rules now mean you need a certain amount of english talent in your squad to meet uefa requirements. any decent english talent under long term contract will be like goldust in the years to come...mark my words before the end of this decade there will be english players going from one premier league club to another for £100m, some of them with far less experience than sterling has now!

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Utd didn't pay £31m for Depay. With additions his full price could go up to €31m or £22m.

bbc state £31 million http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/32730813 http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/33114102

man utd paid 30 million euro for anderson back in 2007, finding it hard to believe nearly a decade later they paid less for depay http://web3.cmvm.pt/sdi2004/emitentes/docs/FR13758.pdf

They are taking it well on Merseyside,the police are involved now.

That's not a Liverpool thing though. Those idiots are everywhere on the internet unfortunately.

Compared to 35 million for Carroll or 50 million for a past-it Torres, I think this fee should surprise no-one. Surely every transfer is bought on the basis of potential, sometimes a player has a proven track record, but it still comes down to the potential job they can do for their new team. Sterling has lots of potential, more than anyone in the English game right now. If you couple that with all the different reasons for an economic inflation of the price - Home grown rules, his contract situation and City's financial resources - then it's not hard to see why he's gone for this much of an amount. If he had gone for less I'd have been shocked. People who are shocked at the fee, I dunno, I wonder how much attention you've been paying towards the inflated prices for young English players for the last several years. I was astounded that City were potentially in for Fabian Delph for less than 10 million. I'm not saying he's worth that, but that seems to be the market-rate.

People comparing Sterling to Walcott are miles off the mark. I'm an Arsenal fan and I appreciate certain things Walcott brings - Ridiculous pace and semi-decent finishing, but he's a profoundly limited footballer. He can't really hold a candle to Sterling, who has more to offer at 20. than Walcott does at 26.

Also, as a Liverpool fan (are we allowed say that again?), I feel we can't say much about Sterling for 50m when we've spent what, 30m on Firmino?

Who knows which transfer stands the test of time better, tbh.