Transfer Rumours The Sterling Discussions

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Which Club should we Sell Sterling to?

  • Manchester City??

    Votes: 27 54.0%
  • Chelsea?

    Votes: 8 16.0%
  • Arsenal

    Votes: 9 18.0%
  • Manhester United

    Votes: 8 16.0%
  • None of the above(Must go to Overseas Club.

    Votes: 12 24.0%
  • MITO is a ****!

    Votes: 4 8.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sanchez joined arsenal last summer, just after we'd finished second and ahead of Arsenal. We also reportedly offered Sanchez more money than Arsenal did.

Arsenal have good football, Wenger, London, CL and Sanchez\Ozil as pulls now, we have **** football, Brod, Liverpool, EL and Lallana\Lambo as pulls for transfer targets <laugh>
 
Just to put a face to the name this is the ****head advising Sterling

You must log in or register to see images


Don't know if you can tell anything about a person from their face. You tell me??

He wears a Rolex Daytona btw

Sterling wears a Rolex sometimes <whistle>


People who wear big brash Rolex watches make me cringe, could they be any more cliche. <laugh>
I'd sooner wear a sundial
You must log in or register to see images
 
Sanchez joined arsenal last summer, just after we'd finished second and ahead of Arsenal. We also reportedly offered Sanchez more money than Arsenal did.

Are you Diego's agent.<whistle>

There's no doubt location plays a part, what's your opinion on that?


The kid reckons he's not interested in money and is not greedy, well he could easily prove it by signing for the likes of City and agreeing terms which keep him on the same money he's currently on at LFC.
 
For Tobes and PJS

Just talking to a bs season ticket holder there and he says the worst kept secret in Liverpool at the minute is Coleman to Chelsea and Barkley to Liverpool.

Supposedly all Barkleys family are reds except his mother and it's on for a summer move to the reds if Man city aren't interested
 
Confirmed: The truth about Sterling's 20% QPR 'sell-on' clause. £50m transfer fee means LFC lose £10m
5/21/2015 08:45:00 p.m.101
With Raheem Sterling seemingly on the verge of leaving Liverpool, rumours are swirling about an alleged clause in his contract, which stipulates that Queens Park Rangers are entitled to 20% of The Mercenary's transfer fee. Is this true?

Unfortunately, it is true, and former QPR Chairman Gianni Paladini confirmed this in June 2014.

When asked for details about Sterling's £500k transfer to Liverpool, he told Get West Sport:

"Rangers will get 20% [from] the sell-on fee, not that QPR probably need it right now.

"The new owners have more money than ever existed in my time. Still, a £40M sale nets them £8M—not bad for a 15-year-old, eh? But I doubt Liverpool will ever sell him."


Paladini was in charge at QPR when Liverpool signed Sterling, so he'll obviously know the finer details of the agreement.

None of the newspapers running the story have referenced this quote from Paladini, which is strange considering it's the original source of the rumour.

Paladini mentioned nothing about a 25% sell-on clause if Sterling signs for an overseas club, so at this point, there's no evidence to suggest that is true.

So, there you have it. If Liverpool sell Sterling for £50m, the club will lose £10m of that fee to QPR.

It's just another example of Liverpool's perennial penchant for being fleeced on transfers.

A 20% sell-on clause is ridiculous, and it's hard to believe that someone at LFC actually sanctioned that.

I'd like to blame it on Ian Ayre, as it sounds like just the type of negligent clause he'd negotiate.
 
Well those who've watched Ibe over the past few seasons have always said he's got more potential than Sterling. Guess now's the time to test that.

guilty as charged,
Ibe does have more potential than sterling, always believed that and not just because of recent bollocks, my post history will back that up lol,but sterling had the game experience that was the only thing i could see in his favour over ibe, never understood why the club didnt try to progress both at same time, instead just pushed sterling through and now look whats happened, ibe is playing catch up!!

why didnt the club rotate both, with sterling being the main one as he had match experience than wasting time sending ibe out on loan? then we may not have needed to waste £20 mill on lallana or marcovic.
 
Confirmed: The truth about Sterling's 20% QPR 'sell-on' clause. £50m transfer fee means LFC lose £10m
5/21/2015 08:45:00 p.m.101
With Raheem Sterling seemingly on the verge of leaving Liverpool, rumours are swirling about an alleged clause in his contract, which stipulates that Queens Park Rangers are entitled to 20% of The Mercenary's transfer fee. Is this true?

Unfortunately, it is true, and former QPR Chairman Gianni Paladini confirmed this in June 2014.

When asked for details about Sterling's £500k transfer to Liverpool, he told Get West Sport:

"Rangers will get 20% [from] the sell-on fee, not that QPR probably need it right now.

"The new owners have more money than ever existed in my time. Still, a £40M sale nets them £8M—not bad for a 15-year-old, eh? But I doubt Liverpool will ever sell him."


Paladini was in charge at QPR when Liverpool signed Sterling, so he'll obviously know the finer details of the agreement.

None of the newspapers running the story have referenced this quote from Paladini, which is strange considering it's the original source of the rumour.

Paladini mentioned nothing about a 25% sell-on clause if Sterling signs for an overseas club, so at this point, there's no evidence to suggest that is true.

So, there you have it. If Liverpool sell Sterling for £50m, the club will lose £10m of that fee to QPR.

It's just another example of Liverpool's perennial penchant for being fleeced on transfers.

A 20% sell-on clause is ridiculous, and it's hard to believe that someone at LFC actually sanctioned that.

I'd like to blame it on Ian Ayre, as it sounds like just the type of negligent clause he'd negotiate.
Ayre wasn't involved when sterling signed. He signed during rafas time
 
Confirmed: The truth about Sterling's 20% QPR 'sell-on' clause. £50m transfer fee means LFC lose £10m
5/21/2015 08:45:00 p.m.101
With Raheem Sterling seemingly on the verge of leaving Liverpool, rumours are swirling about an alleged clause in his contract, which stipulates that Queens Park Rangers are entitled to 20% of The Mercenary's transfer fee. Is this true?

Unfortunately, it is true, and former QPR Chairman Gianni Paladini confirmed this in June 2014.

When asked for details about Sterling's £500k transfer to Liverpool, he told Get West Sport:

"Rangers will get 20% [from] the sell-on fee, not that QPR probably need it right now.

"The new owners have more money than ever existed in my time. Still, a £40M sale nets them £8M—not bad for a 15-year-old, eh? But I doubt Liverpool will ever sell him."


Paladini was in charge at QPR when Liverpool signed Sterling, so he'll obviously know the finer details of the agreement.

None of the newspapers running the story have referenced this quote from Paladini, which is strange considering it's the original source of the rumour.

Paladini mentioned nothing about a 25% sell-on clause if Sterling signs for an overseas club, so at this point, there's no evidence to suggest that is true.

So, there you have it. If Liverpool sell Sterling for £50m, the club will lose £10m of that fee to QPR.

It's just another example of Liverpool's perennial penchant for being fleeced on transfers.

A 20% sell-on clause is ridiculous, and it's hard to believe that someone at LFC actually sanctioned that.

I'd like to blame it on Ian Ayre, as it sounds like just the type of negligent clause he'd negotiate.



Great place to get up to the minute news on the situation.<laugh>
 
I hope they don't pick the little sh+t for the weekends game. If we could afford it, I'd banish him for the whole of next season to play with the kids. Unfortunately money talks and we'll have to cash in. First offer of £50m gets him. Hopefully, he'll turn out to be another SWP, let's face it, his finishing and final ball are woeful atm.
 
Ibe has more potential IMO, but Sterling is light years ahead of him at this moment in time. No comparison.

Going back to an earlier point re. what it will take for LFC to win the title. For me, we need to improve off the pitch as much as we do on it.

1) Get a DoF in who will ensure a consistent ethos/style runs throughout the club. They will be integral to hiring and firing of staff to ensure managers, coaches and players suit the profile/criteria.

2) Get a manager in who is comfortable working in such a structure and will not play any games when signings are imposed on him. Tony Evans and Paul Joyce both said recently that the owners had told Rodgers to start using the new signings more often (this was around Xmas when he was very close to the sack).

Looking at on the pitch:

3) I know I bang on about it but we must build from the back. Yes, we could do with more goals but look at most if not all title winning teams and they all have strong defences. It's rare that a team whose defence is not in the top 4 of best defences in the league actually goes onto win it. It's ultimately why we missed out last season.

4) We need to make 3 crucial signings who can go into the first team. RCB, DM and CF. We need to build a spine in this team.

Personally, I don't think we're that far. But we need the owners to go back to the original plan and stick to their guns.
 
Obviously, because they pay more wages than us. And I don't think its up to Rodgers how much £££ we spend on wages.

Arsenal's 13/14 wage bill was 166mil compared to our 144mil. It's not a huge difference, we just tend to give high wages to crap players
 
Arsenal's 13/14 wage bill was 166mil compared to our 144mil. It's not a huge difference, we just tend to give high wages to crap players

There's obviously a furore around Sterling's demands but I'm just surprised that fans aren't as irate with Henderson on £100k a week.
 
Are you Diego's agent.<whistle>

There's no doubt location plays a part, what's your opinion on that?


The kid reckons he's not interested in money and is not greedy, well he could easily prove it by signing for the likes of City and agreeing terms which keep him on the same money he's currently on at LFC.

I think if a players chosen their club by location it means they aren't necessarily joining a club for footballing reasons. I think a player should be looking at which club offers them the best chance of success. You can use recent history to gauge an opinion on that but a club having done well or won a lot before isn't a sole reason to join, you don't get medals for joining a club that won something prior to you arriving. In reality, we'd had one excellent season in about six years and our star player that had got us there was clearly about to leave since he'd been campaigning his exit for over a year already.
 
There's obviously a furore around Sterling's demands but I'm just surprised that fans aren't as irate with Henderson on £100k a week.
No wonder he walks round with his mouth hanging open, even he can't ****ing beleive that ffs. <yikes>
 
For Tobes and PJS

Just talking to a bs season ticket holder there and he says the worst kept secret in Liverpool at the minute is Coleman to Chelsea and Barkley to Liverpool.

Supposedly all Barkleys family are reds except his mother and it's on for a summer move to the reds if Man city aren't interested

Astro will love that <laugh>
 
guilty as charged,
Ibe does have more potential than sterling, always believed that and not just because of recent bollocks, my post history will back that up lol,but sterling had the game experience that was the only thing i could see in his favour over ibe, never understood why the club didnt try to progress both at same time, instead just pushed sterling through and now look whats happened, ibe is playing catch up!!

why didnt the club rotate both, with sterling being the main one as he had match experience than wasting time sending ibe out on loan? then we may not have needed to waste £20 mill on lallana or marcovic.

Because we like to bend over to accommodate the mardy batards!

Agree on the Marko / Ibe front too. I think that comes down to modern day football, everyone wants success yesterday!
 
For Tobes and PJS

Just talking to a bs season ticket holder there and he says the worst kept secret in Liverpool at the minute is Coleman to Chelsea and Barkley to Liverpool.

Supposedly all Barkleys family are reds except his mother and it's on for a summer move to the reds if Man city aren't interested

Nice try.

But a complete fail I'm afraid
 
Do some of you really feel that you're 'not that far' away from the title? Do you honestly believe that, from an outsiders/neutrals perspective I think your miles off. Teams above you are only going to get stronger as well.

I actually think we're closer to top 4 than you are to the title as things currently stand, and I was one of these Saints fans who said it was never a realistic goal (and don't think it ever will be)
 
There's obviously a furore around Sterling's demands but I'm just surprised that fans aren't as irate with Henderson on £100k a week.

Well Henderson is one of our most influential players and is English. It's the going rate. Especially when City give milner 160k per week. Plus hendo kept his gob shut and took the great offer. Not like the ungrateful scrote bag sterling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.