I Don't Get It

[Bricktop]

Raheem Sterling is under contract until 2017...why would redo his deal with Liverpool in 2015? That would be bad business...

[Gamma]

because he thinks he is in a strong bargaining position and Liverpool would be loathe to let him go on a free transfer. basically the 2016 season is about to start

[HL]

B'Top....hope you said that in jest....

“City are understood to be ready to give 20-year-old Sterling a five-year incentivised contract potentially worth around £50m with bonuses – or £200,000-a-week.

“That is double the deal Liverpool have tabled to try and keep the England international happy at Anfield – and nearly six times times his current £35,000-a-week wages.

“It means the total financial package involved in buying Sterling could be around £100m because Liverpool’s resolve to keep a player – who is under contract for two more seasons – will only be tested if City offer a transfer fee of around £50m.

“City’s move is being driven by sporting director Txiki Begiristain who is determined to sign top English players this summer to help the club meet the ‘home-grown’ quotas.

[Peter R]

Are you quoting Crystal? or a legitimate source? just asking

[Jangle]

Sterling not worth dem breed a money

[Paul Marin]

Sterling not worth dem breed a money

errmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm............shhhhhh...nuh tell dem nuttin!

[Mosiah]

I think he's worth more!

[Jangle]

Well I think he's worth more if Sh!tty is the one buying. They have a p!sspoor record at playing English players.

[Bricktop]

exactly...so why is he getting flack for not signing a contract when he is already under contract?

[Sir X]

LOL.....dis bredda ......Jangle yuh ave Paul like fool boy....hehe

[Paul Marin]

exactly...so why is he getting flack for not signing a contract when he is already under contract?

BT - the way it works is counter intuitive to most legal precedent and out of step with how athletic contracts generally are viewed in US sports. In the US, players tend to be traded for other players and for draft picks - the underlying currency is still $...while it is allowed, they are rarely ever sold. However, there a player has no say in a trade he is involved in, so he can be traded from Buffalo to Miami even though he doesn't want to be traded as long as he is under contract. At the end of his contract, he can walk and sign with anyone who he pleases. Trades are often negotiated with this in mind, as the club gets nothing in return at the expiration of a contract in the NFL, MLB etc.

However, in European football, player contracts have historically been broken when players want to leave b/c the clubs prefer to get the $ value for them than having a toxic element in the squad. (It also happens in American sports, but with much less drama that players want to go to other franchises). So in football, historically (post Bosman ruling) if a player is a "want away" player, clubs usually sell as the clubs don't want to keep a player that doesn't want to be there.

In my opinion though, Sterling is playing with fire with 2 years left on his contract. FSG has already shown that they are willing to buck convention and stare down the player as they did with Suarez. So FSG could literally stick him in the reserves for the next year, or keep him on the bench. For Sterling to be sidelined for 2 years would be his career done. It is he that should be careful and while I am not a fan of FSG, I do think that they are ballsy enough to eff him if he wants to chuck it pon dem. On the contrary, they are businessmen and will no doubt sell him if stupid money is thrown at them. We will have to wait and see.

[Mosiah]

I would have no problem if they park him for two years until his contract ends or until another club comes with stupid money.

I would have made that very clear to him by now.

[Bricktop]

park him for what...honouring his contract?

[Bricktop]

a contract is a contract...he has said he will not re-sign with Liverpool after his current contract is up...has he said he is not willing to honour the remaining two years on his contract? Liverpool can't afford to park him...and that would be unethical on their part...

[Paul Marin]

park him for what...honouring his contract?

Parking him would not be in the club's interest unless they were being vindictive. The truth of the matter is though, that managers have done it before, ask de Manu** bwoy dem who did cross Slurgie. Rafa did it with Michael Owen...and with Roy Keane. Anyway, the point is that he has a contract, FSG is within their right to hold him to it, and further with their right to park him if they want. He should be careful and not burn bridges. I suspect, this is an example of an agent who getting too greedy...but Footballers are not known to have high IQs.