13 Apr 2015 18:53:43
What do you all think of Paul Merson's comments that sterling for Walcott + cash would be a good deal. I completely agree.
Sterling has pace but can't cross or shoot. Brendan claimed Sterling was the best young player in Europe despite Coutinho amongst the ranks. Sterling is not the best young player at Liverpool let alone Europe. youngest best player in Europe.
13 Apr 2015 19:38:01
No thanks. I rather Sterling stayed, but if he doesn't want to, I'll just have the cash.
13 Apr 2015 19:38:17
It would be a good deal. for Arsenal! Walcott is more injury prone than Sturridge, is older than Sterling, and Arsenal will probably offer a max of £15 million plus the player for it to make sense to them. Obviously I am making up the numbers, but with or without extra cash, Liverpool will be not be better off. I am more worried as to why you agree with anything that comes out of Merson's mouth?
13 Apr 2015 19:39:42
I like Theo. I think he's a proper threat! But we must keep hold of Sterling regardless aswel as all our youngsters
13 Apr 2015 21:00:13
Agree Piledriver. Walcott would be a disaster. Ok 15-20K as well. that wouldn't even buy an upgrade on him. maybe konoplyanka at best. What's the point?
13 Apr 2015 21:41:59
Regardless of who said it. Merson or otherwise. The fact is Sterling is not worth the wage he is demanding - a player who has not had a full great season yet. I agree Walcott has had his fair share of injuries recently which is the only thing putting me off. But attribute for attribute (finishing, pace, dribbling, crossing, awareness), Walcott wins against Sterling.
13 Apr 2015 22:03:00
Shez9k, Why go for Walcott when other teams are willing to pay cash in full, which we can then use to buy an actual world class player? Unless they offer a straight swap for Sanchez (unrealistic), Liverpool shouldn't budge. Luckily fans don't handle transfer dealings!
13 Apr 2015 22:03:25
I entirely fail to see the logic in refusing to match Sterling's wage demands, but getting Walcott who's wage demands will probably only be slightly less, who isn't that much of an improvement on Sterling, who is six years older that Sterling, and who has spent most of the last year and a half injured. Even if we get money & Walcott, it's senseless. We have Coutinho, Ibe, Markovic and Lallana, that's enough to sustain the loss of Sterling without needing to get Walcott as part of the deal.
If Sterling is to go (and I think we'll regret it if he does), then take straight cash and use it to buy a striker to cover for Sturridge's inevitable injuries. An out and out striker, btw not a winger / attacking midfielder who can play as a striker sometimes.
13 Apr 2015 22:27:47
Walcott is a speed boat without a driver! Why on earth would you want him?
13 Apr 2015 23:00:10
It`s not about his wages because Ed`s have said that it is NOT about the money. He is on 35k a week and his wages will be tripled at 100k so clearly wages are not the prob. It is the clauses and riders in the contract that are the issues and the more people bang on about the money being a probwill NEVER make it so. Now as for Walcott, Pile is on the money. If Merson thinks Theo is that god then why sell to a rival? Exactly because Theo is nothing but a sicknote with pace and no end and NO future upside unlike Sterling who is still young with a higher cieling. That is a deal in heaven for the Arse. Sterling is better than Walcott now and severely better when Theo was 20 so NO THANKS! We will take Alexis and NO CASH or we stick them for every penny they have plus one pound they always seem to add to their offers(cos that`s how the Arse does business clearly, LOL)
14 Apr 2015 02:51:18
ask for ramsay and 30 million