With the 20 year old money-grabbing Sterling trying to mug-off 'Pool for an undeserved weekly windfall of £100,000, many have been debating whether 'Pool should tell him to sling his hook, instead of sucking up to him and playing him ahead of proven goal-scorer, Sturridge, in a game that 'Pool have embarrassed themselves in, against Arsenal. Significantly, Skrtel is injured, and it would appear that 'Pool desperately need him, in stark contrast to Sterling, who is likely to feel about as wanted as a wart on the tip of your bell-end. So, my question is this: if, as it appears is likely to be the case, 'Pool are ready to throw £100,000 per week away on silly wages, do you think they should give it to the bell-end wart (Sterling), or to a player who 'Pool actually genuinely miss (Skrtel)? This is a sensitive subject, so - as ever, please, lads - no wumming.
I'm flabberghasted how many column inches the Sterling things has been given in the press. He's a good player, a very good player in fact but it's a bit way OTT I feel. If he goes, Liverpool retain a good player.. if not.. they get a **** load of cash which will probably benefit the team more than the retention of one player I reckon.
If Skrtel demanded £100K per week, I think they'd give it him. Wouldn't you? Scary b*stard It's called extortion
Skrtel has been really good this season but is prone to the odd howler. Sterling I'd sell if we had the stupid money being talked about actually offered.
You know that saying, "laughing all the way to the bank"? Well, I think that, when Real Madrid look at Sterling they are laughting. Full stop.
