The Liverpool Thread

[LFCMarshall]

More pertinently who would pay anything like that for someone that's never frigging fit!

Don't see as he has much of any resale value right now.

I think you would be surprised... The fact that when he is fit he is one of the best strikers in the league will make some want to take a gamble

It really wouldn't surprise me if someone like City went for him.. Home-grown which they struggle with and a replacement for Bony who looks like he may leave

 

[Quasit]

I think you would be surprised... The fact that when he is fit he is one of the best strikers in the league will make some want to take a gamble

It really wouldn't surprise me if someone like City went for him.. Home-grown which they struggle with and a replacement for Bony who looks like he may leave

Aguero and Sturridge as main strikers with their injury problems. When fit would be amazing, but considering their history would be a very risky move.

 

[LFCMarshall]

Aguero and Sturridge as main strikers with their injury problems. When fit would be amazing, but considering their history would be a very risky move.

Completely agree.

But then again, City have more money than sense and that extra player to fill the home-grown quota would be an added bonus

 

[Scouseinthehouse]

I don't want us to sell him at all, he's the perfect striker for us and it would be an absolute nightmare if he found fitness and form for another club

There's the rub. For us or anyone else.

That's a MASSIVE 'IF.'

 

[woolly]

I think you would be surprised... The fact that when he is fit he is one of the best strikers in the league will make some want to take a gamble

It really wouldn't surprise me if someone like City went for him.. Home-grown which they struggle with and a replacement for Bony who looks like he may leave

If City did go for him what makes you think he would want to go back to a club that dumped him in the first place. He wasn't getting games there so went to Chelsea with the same result. Sturridge is better off staying at Liverpool at least when he's fit he will play.

 

[PatrickLFC]

There's the rub. For us or anyone else.

That's a MASSIVE 'IF.'

Thing is, we've persevered this long, we need him to reach full fitness and see if he can stay there for a while. If we sell him after spending a year and a half paying his wages and for treatment, then all we've done is help out his next club. Plus, he's a great guy who loves the club for being the first one to give him a proper chance. His goals record for us is ridiculous, and would be even better if you consider how many of his appearances have been less than 90 minutes and at less than even average fitness. He's seriously worth the gamble, I would not be happy at all if we sold him

 

[sunilvk7]

If City did go for him what makes you think he would want to go back to a club that dumped him in the first place. He wasn't getting games there so went to Chelsea with the same result. Sturridge is better off staying at Liverpool at least when he's fit he will play.

City didn't dump him. He was a teenager and still played 26 times as a 19 year old player. It was Sturridge who dumped City to move to Chelsea.

 

[Scouseinthehouse]

Thing is, we've persevered this long, we need him to reach full fitness and see if he can stay there for a while. If we sell him after spending a year and a half paying his wages and for treatment, then all we've done is help out his next club. Plus, he's a great guy who loves the club for being the first one to give him a proper chance. His goals record for us is ridiculous, and would be even better if you consider how many of his appearances have been less than 90 minutes and at less than even average fitness. He's seriously worth the gamble, I would not be happy at all if we sold him

To allay your fears somewhat this was a story in the Sunday Manc so I wouldn't read too much into it personally right now.

As for his long term fitness, I don't think we'd be letting him go anywhere if there wasn't still SERIOUS concerns. So him being healthy and tearing it up for another club would be down to pure chance.

At the minute, he's far more beneficial to us IMHO as I just can't see who would pay anything approaching £20 million for him. Let alone what he's worth. So we continue to hold him back and try get him fully ready to go. However long he's held out. We can't get this one wrong when your talking at least £40/ 50 million to replace him with someone of similar quality.

But if we do, and he breaks down again, I don't know where you go other than accepting something just will never be right with him and move on. We can't be sat here next season with him sat on the sidelines for a long spell again.

 

[woolly]

City didn't dump him. He was a teenager and still played 26 times as a 19 year old player. It was Sturridge who dumped City to move to Chelsea.

Yes, Sturridge instigated the move but at the same time City were happy to let him go and weren't prepared to give youth a chance something that is still true today. Ask any City fan and they will tell you there are players in their reserves and youth teams who are more than capable of playing at Premiership level but will ultimately miss out due to the buying culture.

 

[epic terrorist]

If Pep takes over in the summer they will have more brains than money and that will be dangerous combination.

You seen the quotes from I think it was Mattheus or Sammer?

Paraphrasing but was along lines of

"Pep's head is not fully focused on Bayern, he is thinking about squad building with Manchester City"

or something like that, someone else may be able to find the exact quote.

 

[sunilvk7]

Yes, Sturridge instigated the move but at the same time City were happy to let him go and weren't prepared to give youth a chance something that is still true today. Ask any City fan and they will tell you there are players in their reserves and youth teams who are more than capable of playing at Premiership level but will ultimately miss out due to the buying culture.

That's not true. When Sturridge left City, City were known for promoting their young players. They tried to keep him and he left. This was before the big money take over.

At that time City had many players who were promoted from academy. Players like Richards, Ireland, Johnson, Onuoha, Joe Hart (not academy player but he was given chance as youngster), Schmeichel.

City were know to give their kids chances and they had one of the best academies in the league.

 

[woolly]

Maybe so but how many are there now? Oh yes one, Hart and like you say he wasn't an academy player obtained from Shrewbury and only really got a chance after proving himself on loan elsewhere.... The season Sturridge left City spent £103 million on new players including the likes of Adebayor, Lescott, Tevez, Santa Cruz and Viera but only clawed back £21 million from the sale of the Sturridge, Schmeichel, Elano, Dunne, Fernandes and a certain Ched Evans. I think maybe you are mistaken in your belief that it was before the big money take over. Oh and in the same season Hart had been loaned to Birmingham.

 

[sunilvk7]

Maybe so but how many are there now? Oh yes one, Hart and like you say he wasn't an academy player obtained from Shrewbury and only really got a chance after proving himself on loan elsewhere.... The season Sturridge left City spent £103 million on new players including the likes of Adebayor, Lescott, Tevez, Santa Cruz and Viera but only clawed back £21 million from the sale of the Sturridge, Schmeichel, Elano, Dunne, Fernandes and a certain Ched Evans. I think maybe you are mistaken in your belief that it was before the big money take over. Oh and in the same season Hart had been loaned to Birmingham.

Sturridge left in 2009, what City are now has nothing to with how their academy was in 2008. That's some serious straw clutching.

Sturridge was still played 26 times that season and he didn't want to sign extension as Chelesa were interested in him. So City didn't dump him (your initial point which was completely wrong). City wanted him to sign extension but he rejected offer and signed for Chelsea. City were helpless as Sturridge didn't want to sign contract. It's as simple.

Also he left because City don't give youth any chances so he signed for Chelsea who are known for giving their youngsters many chances isn't it?

 

[Scouseinthehouse]

This is a silly debate as it's long past, but I thought it was well known Sturridge left City to play regularly? He's always said that. And with the multitude of players in his position, he never felt he'd get the games he felt he needed to take his career on.

 

[woolly]

Sturridge left in 2009, what City are now has nothing to with how their academy was in 2008. That's some serious straw clutching.

Sturridge was still played 26 times that season and he didn't want to sign extension as Chelesa were interested in him. So City didn't dump him (your initial point which was completely wrong). City wanted him to sign extension but he rejected offer and signed for Chelsea. City were helpless as Sturridge didn't want to sign contract. It's as simple.

Also he left because City don't give youth any chances so he signed for Chelsea who are known for giving their youngsters many chances isn't it?

Errr that was what I said if you read the comments, he wasn't getting game time so he left. What I said wasn't clutching at straws either the Arabs took over in 2008 a whole year before Sturridge left, the facts are there in black and white if you look. Personnally

 

[woolly]

This is a silly debate as it's long past, but I thought it was well known Sturridge left City to play regularly? He's always said that. And with the multitude of players in his position, he never felt he'd get the games he felt he needed to take his career on.

I agree Scouse this debate is long past but I don't like being accused of being a liar when the facts speak for themselves.

 

[sunilvk7]

This is a silly debate as it's long past, but I thought it was well known Sturridge left City to play regularly? He's always said that. And with the multitude of players in his position, he never felt he'd get the games he felt he needed to take his career on.

And what better club to sign for than Chelsea isn't it, known to play youngsters.

 

[sunilvk7]

I agree Scouse this debate is long past but I don't like being accused of being a liar when the facts speak for themselves.

No one called you liar, point is City didn't dump him. He left City by not signing contract extension. He left for free. So City didn't dump him. They offered him contract but he didn't want to sign one.

 

[Scouseinthehouse]

And what better club to sign for than Chelsea isn't it, known to play youngsters.

I presume his thinking was that after only starting 16 times his last season, with 5 and more players vying for his position and City not exactly breaking their necks to keep him; he'd have for more of a chance at Chelsea with only Drogba and Kalu to really battle.

 

[woolly]

No one called you liar, point is City didn't dump him. He left City by not signing contract extension. He left for free. So City didn't dump him. They offered him contract but he didn't want to sign one.

I beg to differ he left for a sum of £5 million, an initial payment of £3.5 million and two further payments of £500 thousand and a 15% sell on fee.