Raheem Sterling nearest the pin.

Sterlol - When you leave Pool?

  • As soon as City pony up the cash

    Votes: 18 81.8%

  • Webster troll

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Aidy Ward is my hero.

    Votes: 4 18.2%
  • Total voters
    22

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
40m, 150k a week to City and whatever equivalent of our 'strategic partnership' with Real Madrid after Bale that the Pool PR department can think of to sell it to the fans.
 
ADL9798 said:
Yep, it was less in 2013, but that valuation still wasn't reached, hence he stayed. As moomba said had a £55m offer come our way in 2013 then he may well have been sold.

The following summer many posters in this forum still believed that £40-45m would get it done because we would be desperate to get rid of him due to his baggage. On the contrary as you said his valuation had increased to £75m, a club met that valuation and consequently he was allowed to leave.

I'm sorry if you feel like I've singled you out, it wasn't my intention. There were a number of posts I could have quoted, yours just popped up first. Like I said before, it wasn't about point scoring, as usual Cruyff was keen to debate semantics and in poor judgement I indulged him. I just wanted to show that we had been in a similar situation before, and that was the basis for my position on how I believed this situation with Sterling would play out.
Click to expand...
It takes two to tango, my friend.

Alas, I am always the bad guy who has been painted as the devil on your blank canvases.
 
ADL9798 said:
Yep, it was less in 2013, but that valuation still wasn't reached, hence he stayed. As moomba said had a £55m offer come our way in 2013 then he may well have been sold.

The following summer many posters in this forum still believed that £40-45m would get it done because we would be desperate to get rid of him due to his baggage. On the contrary as you said his valuation had increased to £75m, a club met that valuation and consequently he was allowed to leave.

I'm sorry if you feel like I've singled you out, it wasn't my intention. There were a number of posts I could have quoted, yours just popped up first. Like I said before, it wasn't about point scoring, as usual Cruyff was keen to debate semantics and in poor judgement I indulged him. I just wanted to show that we had been in a similar situation before, and that was the basis for my position on how I believed this situation with Sterling would play out.
Click to expand...

I see what you're trying to say. In hindsight it was clear that Arsenal were misinformed about the supposed release clause in Suarez's contract.

We'll never know what could have been, but if Arsenal offered something say the high £40m range, then perhaps a deal could've been struck. Anyway it didn't happen so its all a moot point.

At that stage, Wenger hadn't really been stung into action to get any deal done for a player of that size and scale. Hence he might thought meeting the purported clause (plus one mighty pound more) would've been enough. Only after our opening day debacle against Villa did he really think he needs to do something.

By that stage the Suarez and Higuain chapters were closed, hence the signing of Ozil on deadline day.

But anyway, thankfully we had already signed Sanogo so we moved on just fine.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

No deal was ever going to be struck with Arsenal. We were never going to sell our best player to a direct rival who we were competing with for top four. Im not sure why Arsenal fans think a deal was close or it could have been done.

It was never, ever going to happen. We knew how good Suarez was and we knew he was key to taking us back up the league. We knew he was far better than 40 or 50 million. We had absolutely no desire to sell.
 
glenferry23 said:
I see what you're trying to say. In hindsight it was clear that Arsenal were misinformed about the supposed release clause in Suarez's contract.

We'll never know what could have been, but if Arsenal offered something say the high £40m range, then perhaps a deal could've been struck. Anyway it didn't happen so its all a moot point.

At that stage, Wenger hadn't really been stung into action to get any deal done for a player of that size and scale. Hence he might thought meeting the purported clause (plus one mighty pound more) would've been enough. Only after our opening day debacle against Villa did he really think he needs to do something.

By that stage the Suarez and Higuain chapters were closed, hence the signing of Ozil on deadline day.

But anyway, thankfully we had already signed Sanogo so we moved on just fine.
Click to expand...

IIRC initially we would have sold Suarez if you bid 60m. After the 40,000,001 pound nonsense / tapping up Ayre decided that we would not negotiate at all with Arsenal.
 
moomba said:
QPR apparently have a 20% sell on clause for Sterling to look forward to.
Click to expand...

They aren't entitled to 20% of a tribunal fee so we'll happily hang on to Sterling without him signing a new deal.

Looks like he is going nowhere unless Ayre gets an offer that he is happy with. Which us fair enough because the club has no intention of selling.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

WorldCup2022OZ said:
They aren't entitled to 20% of a tribunal fee so we'll happily hang on to Sterling without him signing a new deal.

Looks like he is going nowhere unless Ayre gets an offer that he is happy with. Which us fair enough because the club has no intention of selling.
Click to expand...
Liverpool got a percentage of Tom Inces tribunal fee so I don't know why QPR wouldnt get a percentage of Sterlings.

Besides I doubt it would get to a tribunal. This time next year he's either sold, signed a new contract or filling out his Webster Ruling paperwork.
 
moomba said:
Liverpool got a percentage of Tom Inces tribunal fee so I don't know why QPR wouldnt get a percentage of Sterlings.

Besides I doubt it would get to a tribunal. This time next year he's either sold, signed a new contract or filling out his Webster Ruling paperwork.
Click to expand...

The webster ruling would see him being sold for 20 - 30m pounds so good luck with that. Did we get anything from the Ince fee? Didn't think we did.
 
glenferry23 said:
I see what you're trying to say. In hindsight it was clear that Arsenal were misinformed about the supposed release clause in Suarez's contract.

We'll never know what could have been, but if Arsenal offered something say the high £40m range, then perhaps a deal could've been struck. Anyway it didn't happen so its all a moot point.

At that stage, Wenger hadn't really been stung into action to get any deal done for a player of that size and scale. Hence he might thought meeting the purported clause (plus one mighty pound more) would've been enough. Only after our opening day debacle against Villa did he really think he needs to do something.

By that stage the Suarez and Higuain chapters were closed, hence the signing of Ozil on deadline day.

But anyway, thankfully we had already signed Sanogo so we moved on just fine.
Click to expand...
Arsenal was informed correctly. As that twat Henry said last offseason about not having to honour contracts.
 
WorldCup2022OZ said:
The webster ruling would see him being sold for 20 - 30m pounds so good luck with that. Did we get anything from the Ince fee? Didn't think we did.
Click to expand...


He wouldnt have to pay anywhere near £20-30m. But even if he did I'm sure there would be clubs willing to compensate him in lieu of paying a transfer fee.

And you got £700k for Ince apparently based on a 35% sell on.
 
Latro said:
Arsenal was informed correctly. As that twat Henry said last offseason about not having to honour contracts.
Click to expand...

We've been over this countless times. The facts of the matter are that the PFA looked at the situation and stated that there was no obligation forcing Liverpool to sell. The only obligation was allowing Suarez to talk with other clubs if a bid of greater than 40m pounds was made. Henry trolled Arsenal fans and you fell for it. Have a look for yourself:

http://news.arseblog.com/2013/08/pfa-confirm-no-40m-suarez-clause/
 
Cruyff14 said:
Which one is it?

It's one or the other. Not intention when the price is right.

If they don't have intention to sell, you would refuse any offer.
Click to expand...

Let me put it plainly for you: Liverpool have no intention of selling Sterling. Like any club though they will sell a player if offered enough money. To suggest that a club either does or doesn't want to sell a player is simply idiotic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Misher
  • Poll
The Title Race
2 3 4 5
Replies
107
Views
4K
99 Problems
9
T
University research on the role of football in response to military conflict
Replies
4
Views
497
TheGreatBarryB
TheGreatBarryB
PerthBoy86
How do fans of smaller clubs in big European leagues keep following/support a league where the same few teams always win it?
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
PerthBoy86
PerthBoy86
Bostonian
The Sportswashing mega thread.
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
226
Views
10K
RossFC
RossFC
giggler99
  • Locked
A-League A-League Men Round 16 - The Year Of The Dragon
2 3
Replies
70
Views
2K
Pacman82
Pacman82
JeffreyCC
Celtic FC - Follow the Bhoys Thread
Replies
14
Views
1K
JeffreyCC
JeffreyCC
giggler99
  • Locked
A-League A-League Men Round 23 - Gather Round The Melbourne Derby
Replies
11
Views
427
Aucklander
Aucklander
Back
Top