We are pulling out

no, Manutd paid the manutd price

if only Spurs were interested the price would have been £20mil. And Levy would have probably got him for £18mil.

If Liverpool bid it would have been £25mil.

Price isn't about some fixed value system.

comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 15 minutes ago
no, Manutd paid the manutd price

if only Spurs were interested the price would have been £20mil. And Levy would have probably got him for £18mil.

If Liverpool bid it would have been £25mil.

Price isn't about some fixed value system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We did pay that price, but it was in no way representative of what he was worth. We overspent. If City spend £40m or more on Sterling, they have overspent. They know they're overspending, and there's a limit at just how much you can try to screw out of people.

If they pull out and you're left with Sterling, I don't think they're that disappointed, lets just put it that way.

Sterling is worth 40 million ,if he costs 50 million that's a premium for guaranteeing City will finish above Liverpool again next season,that didn't look nailed on 2 months out
City should stop mucking about talking about average journeymen like Wilshire and pay Pool the money

I think people get too hung up on transfer fees. It just seems to be a banter game of one-upmanship.

If Chelsea pay £50mil for an 8 goal a season player they really don't care, it's 8 goals. And better than paying £10mil for a 7 goal player.

it's not as simple as that at all though. Otherwise technically anything and everything would be worth anywhere from 0 to infinity. There's a difference between actual cost paid and market value. If I put a house for sale for 300,000 despite the fact it was independently valued at 250,000, the house's value is still 250,000, not 300,000.
----------------------
Football players are not houses, unless you are Akinfenwa.

My point is you can say what you think he is worth in general but if city choose to pay 45 mill for him that is his worth whether you agree he is worth that or not.

comment by Control&Roll (U14197)
posted 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
They weren't bargains, it's more that Sterling for 50mil would be an absolute rip off. He is worth no more than 25mil.
------------------
He's worth what someone is willing to pay for him, it's as simple as that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True. But no one is yet to put a bid worth £40M, never mind £50M so I don't know how people came to the conclusion that he is worth that.

comment by jedward belmont (U3109)
posted 4 hours, 40 minutes ago
Sterling is worth 40 million ,if he costs 50 million that's a premium for guaranteeing City will finish above Liverpool again next season,that didn't look nailed on 2 months out
City should stop mucking about talking about average journeymen like Wilshire and pay Pool the money
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A journeyman that has been at the same club since he was a child 😂😂😂

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

you make one mistake and that's all that gets noticed anyways
Different players obviously but Wilshire is nowhere near Sterling
Im sure Liverpool fans would would be delighted if Citys focus was distracted from the excellent Sterling

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator