The Liverpool Thread

[sunilvk7]

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.

For a 19 year old, playing 26 times was a good time. Then at Chelsea it worked like a treat isn't it, starting 2 league games following season.

So you mean city to pay ridiculous money to keep him or hold the gun at point blank range and make him sign a contract?

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.

He left for free and since he was U24 player, fee was set by tribunal.

 

[woolly]

.....He left for free and since he was U24 player, fee was set by tribunal.

Since when has £5 million been for Free, money was exchanged, in my book a Free transfer means no money is given to the former club. City may not have got what they could have asked for but they got something so therefore a transfer fee was paid.

 

[Scouseinthehouse]

For a 19 year old, playing 26 times was a good time. Then at Chelsea it worked like a treat isn't it, starting 2 league games following season.....

How it worked out is immaterial. He'd just seen Bellamy added the January, a deal for big money for Santa Cruz agreed before the summer window, and City awash with money busy tying down other deals for the likes of Tevez.

All after he thought he'd broken through with his 26 games/ 16 starts.

City wanted names. They weren't that interested in keeping him. He stayed, great. He didn't, meh. They had their first batch of star names to add to Robinho. He had faith in his own ability, had got the taste of regular football, and wanted to keep it going. How it worked out at Chelsea is another thing (as is the logic in him going there IMHO but that's another debate); but he felt he had a far better chance of playing than what he had the way City were hoarding expensive purchases.

I don't know if 'dumped on him' is the right expression. But City certainly weren't that arsed about keeping him.

 

[sunilvk7]

Since when has £5 million been for Free, money was exchanged, in my book a Free transfer means no money is given to the former club. City may not have got what they could have asked for but they got something so therefore a transfer fee was paid.

Oh god, you are not getting it, isn't it. City didn't sell him. Since he rejected the contract offer and walked for free, city were entitled for compensation as he was U24 player. That fee is set by tribunal.

So City didn't sell him. He rejected contract and walked out. So City didnt dump him, he dumped City.

 

[woolly]

Meanwhile hopefully Liverpool will persevere with Sturridge as on his day he is awesome, and a few teams will be willing to take a punt.

 

[sunilvk7]

How it worked out is immaterial. He'd just seen Bellamy added the January, a deal for big money for Santa Cruz agreed before the summer window, and City awash with money busy tying down other deals for the likes of Tevez.

All after he thought he'd broken through with his 26 games/ 16 starts.

City wanted names. They weren't that interested in keeping him. He stayed, great. He didn't, meh. They had their first batch of star names to add to Robinho. He had faith in his own ability, had got the taste of regular football, and wanted to keep it going. How it worked out at Chelsea is another thing (as is the logic in him going there IMHO but that's another debate); but he felt he had a far better chance of playing than what he had the way City were hoarding expensive purchases.

I don't know if 'dumped on him' is the right expression. But City certainly weren't that arsed about keeping him.

Everything would have been logical had he moved to some club who would have played him. Chelsea at that time were very strong team and had likes of Drogba, Anelka (PL highest scorer previous season), Kalou.

So saying he left City for game time is wrong when he ended up at Chelsea who had bigger stars than City could attract.

Also City were not arsed to keep him is wrong, they were arsed to keep Joe Hart.

All about playing time.
Daniel Sturridge set to leave Manchester City over £75,000-a-week pay demands | Football | The Guardian

 

[woolly]

Oh god, you are not getting it, isn't it. City didn't sell him. Since he rejected the contract offer and walked for free, city were entitled for compensation as he was U24 player. That fee is set by tribunal.

So City didn't sell him. He rejected contract and walked out. So City didnt dump him, he dumped City.

I refer you to Scouse's comment above. City could easily have negotiated with him for a contract but didn't, they were more interested in big ready made stars than a youngster who was on the rise.

 

[sunilvk7]

I refer you to Scouse's comment above. City could easily have negotiated with him for a contract but didn't, they were more interested in big ready made stars than a youngster who was on the rise.

And?

How about them making numerous attempts but failed to agree as Sturridge demands were ridiculous even for City's standards.

Easily negotiated, lol.

 

[Scouseinthehouse]

.....

All about playing time.
Daniel Sturridge set to leave Manchester City over £75,000-a-week pay demands | Football | The Guardian

I hate dragging superfluous press articles up.

Vis-a-vis .....

Daniel Sturridge: 'I left Manchester City to play football' - Sports Mole

That was this year but a point he's always stuck to. So it depends who you chose to believe. Player or club.

 

[wkdsoul]

He was offered more money at Chelsea than we offered, the reports of his demands were stupid money for the stage he was at, at the time. Nowadays he prob would have got it, with clubs investing daft money in HG players.

Chelsea and London were too big a draw once they put in the offer he was never staying at City. Chelsea were winning stuff and City were just starting to buy everything that moved. It was a pretty much a perfect storm of club buying big and player wanted more, both arguments can be held up pretty strongly. They wanted stars, and he wanted pay parity with the top players at the club before he should have asked. He could have stayed and gone on loan from City as easy he did Chelsea.

It'll he said, she said forever..

 

[jameshlfc]

There is no chance that Liverpool would accept £25mil for Sturridge. They would be mad to.

 

[mersk]

BBC reporting we're recalling Danny Ward from Aberdeen, with reports from Scotland saying it's due to an injury on Mignolet. Now we can finally field a better Injury XI than a Fit XI.

 

[Tyton]

There is no chance that Liverpool would accept £25mil for Sturridge. They would be mad to.

You're joking, right? FSG would grab that money and run before the other club changes their mind.

In a year or two Sturridge isn't even going to be worth the cost of paper his contract is written on, the way things are going.

 

[Tezzz]

There is no chance that Liverpool would accept £25mil for Sturridge. They would be mad to.

I'd take it tbh

 

[Scouseinthehouse]

BBC reporting we're recalling Danny Ward from Aberdeen, with reports from Scotland saying it's due to an injury on Mignolet. Now we can finally field a better Injury XI than a Fit XI.

Don't tease me!

You're joking, right? FSG would grab that money and run before the other club changes their mind.

In a year or two Sturridge isn't even going to be worth the cost of paper his contract is written on, the way things are going.

We're in no hurry to move on right here, right now.

But if he breaks down again after this, people need to put sentiment aside and accept that there's something seriously wrong here that isn't being rectified and it'd be time to move on.

 

[Tezzz]

BBC reporting we're recalling Danny Ward from Aberdeen, with reports from Scotland saying it's due to an injury on Mignolet. Now we can finally field a better Injury XI than a Fit XI.

Hopefully he's broke his arm and won't be back in action for a year

 

[PatrickLFC]

I don't want Ward to be recalled if it's only for cover, if that's the case he'd be better off playing regularly in Scotland. If he's actually going to get a chance to play his way into the number one jersey then fine, bring him back. Definitely would be interested to see how he will do

 

[sunilvk7]

I hate dragging superfluous press articles up.

Vis-a-vis .....

Daniel Sturridge: 'I left Manchester City to play football' - Sports Mole

That was this year but a point he's always stuck to. So it depends who you chose to believe. Player or club.

I was expecting "I left City because they didn't pay me 80 grand per week" interview.

 

[LFCMarshall]

There is no chance that Liverpool would accept £25mil for Sturridge. They would be mad to.

I'd take it tbh

I think I may be tempted as well depending on how much he features the second half of the season

its 150k a week and 25million for someone who is simply not playing at the moment

 

[Tyton]

Pretty much. Sturridge is a 10m a year passenger at this point, and seems to be on fast track to becoming impossible to sell in a not so far future. At some point you just got to cut your losses.

In FM selling him is literally the first thing I do with Liverpool save.