Is anyone else deeply disenfranchised with the Premium League here? No team in the last rounds of European competition, and the main answer I see is spend more money on foreign players.... yeah great; that's how Spain and Germany became successful.
Football Banter Thread
- Thread starter Rotty
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
It absolutely is, Spanish teams spent more on non english players, so did German teams. English players aren't remotely as good and the general quality of English players is a decade away from improving IF the right changes are made from grass roots up... which won't happen. Every time someone gets uppity about the number of English players in the league or the English national team the FA put together a bunch of completely unqualified people with zero experience in changing grass roots football, most without any experience coaching either at all or at multiple levels who then decide to implement a bunch of ideas only a bunch of morons could come up with.
The rest of Europe and much of the rest of the world tends to look around at who is successful and implement similar plans then not surprisingly find a huge improvement after 5-10 years. English people are arrogant and often stupid, believe they know better often citing illogical arguments like "we invented it, we know what's best" and ignore what countries that have improved the quality of the national teams, leagues, coaching and across all levels.
England doesn't have the best players, to get better teams you need better players. When the best English players means handing over 160k+ a week to the likes of Milner or 300k a week to Rooney then where are you going to get better players, by giving the next rung down from Milner 150k a week or getting a player several rungs above Milner for 100k a week because they aren't English?
It does not seem logical to throw money at buying more overseas talent, we have a small enough percentage of English players playing in the league, having less is hardly going to solve the national problem! I agree with the wages point completely.
The game is corrupt from top to bottom; forget the joke that is FIFA, Sky money and the likes of Chelsea and Man City have ruined it for the Premier league, or 1st division to give it its old name.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,112
- Location
- one nation under sony
English players used to go abroad as the money was often better and you would play in leagues where skill and technique were far more important than tough tackling and being 'a hard man' and the referees were more protective of players than they ever were in English football.
That's not really the case anymore as many leagues are steadily morphing into similar experiences. That and the money in the PL means most top players will stay and get paid more. The sad thing is any player that's been successful abroad says it improved them as a player and if anyone gets the chance they should take it. But when the choice is 'Spain for £35k a week or Newcastle for £60k a week' you know which most players will choose, especially when they're young or have vulture agents in their ears telling them to take the money.
This is a huge part of what is ruining the game from young players developing. You have these greedy agents blowing hot air up their **** telling them they are worth some ridiculous figure. Earn it first!!!
UEFA's club rankings are out. Chelsea and Arsenal retain 4th and 9th places whilst Manchester Untied drop to 10th place:
http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/club/index.html
http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/club/index.html
Whilst I know that is a mathematical table, I'd still put PSG and Atletico at 4th and 5th.
Quite easy to drop off with a single season out of the CL. We would be top 5 still if we were in the CL last season and had an average run.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
There is nothing wrong with agents, there is frankly nothing stopping a player asking who will pay them what without an agent, agents are only doing their job which is saving the player the trouble of doing exactly the same things.
Sterling is rated at seemingly way above 30million by Liverpool.... but they want to pay him 100k or less. Yet they bought Suarez for less than 30mil and he was on 200k when he left. Club is the only hypocrite here, not the agent or the player. The club can't demand 50mil for a player while also implying the player is greedy to not accept whatever the club deem is fine in wages. The club is on one hand saying you aren't good enough to get more than 100k a week wages(though other clubs are obviously offering more) while also demanding a fee that pretty much proves the player is worth more than they are saying.
Fans like to vilify players who dare to want to move on to bigger or better things or bigger wages, when almost every person complaining would happily take more wages for their current job or move somewhere for a large pay rise. Clubs vilify agents because frankly clubs also get upset when they can't take advantage of a player.
As above Liverpool value him much higher than they were attempting to show during contract negotiations, thus they were trying to take advantage of Sterling and failed to do so but somehow this is everyone else's fault but not Liverpool's.
This is a huge part of what is ruining the game from young players developing. You have these greedy agents blowing hot air up their **** telling them they are worth some ridiculous figure. Earn it first!!!
Case in point, fan angry at agents for blowing hot air up their behind... what hot air. Can you give an example of when an agent was incorrect and the player wasn't worth that much. Again about Sterling, club pretend he's not worth more than 100k a week, agent tells player he is worth more than 100k a week. Player doesn't sign contract, other clubs think about buying him, Liverpool value him above 30mil so reject a 30mil offer.... pretty clear the agent wasn't blowing any smoke. Liverpool value him north of 30mil but wanted to pay him as little as they could get away with. The club were in I don't know what the opposite of the saying is, drawing cold smoke out of Sterling's behind?
What about Hazard, agent said you're worth more than X, Y and Z offers, and he ended up with even more money. Which players have been entirely screwed by their agents with unrealistic wage targets or transfer moves. I can think of lots of clubs who like with Sterling, didn't manage to hold on to more valuable players but in most cases the player gets his move and gets a big pay rise so there is little evidence agents are in the wrong here.
In terms of 'earning it', how has Sterling not earned more than 100k a week from Liverpool, if Liverpool believe he is worth north of 30mil... how hasn't he earned it? Or the reverse, if Sterling isn't worth more than 100k a week, how can Liverpool demand more than 30mil... they haven't earned it if the player isn't really worth that much have they?
Last edited:
Agree with DM on this point. Agents, or their equivalents, are present in many walks of life and the notion of having an individual or firm negotiate on your behalf is entirely sensible.
Although certain players are definitely prima donnas, the clubs definitely want it their wn way and always seem to be playing the mock offended card. Are there any players globally who have gone for £30m or more in the last couple of years who aren't on over £100,000 per week? Probably not.
Also, another thing I find irksome is all of the former Liverpool players telling Sterling he should shut up and stay with Liverpool because it's for the best for his career. Firstly, Liverpool aren't a successful club at the moment, and secondly, they've shown in the last 18 months quite how awful their player recruitment is. Why should Sterling have any faith that they'll dramatically improve.
i don't think Carragher sees the irony between telling Sterling to stay put, but indicating that Berahino should move to a bigger club. They're both players at similar stages in their careers who've shown quite a bit of promise. Berahino leaving WBA for Liverpool would obviously be a step up. Sterling leaving Liverpool for a Man City or Real Madrid would obviously be a step up.
Berahino said in the week he does not believe fans will begrudge him "going on to bigger things" if he keeps the club in the Premier League, and admitted he would be ready to "push on" after securing Albion's safety.
Carragher added: "I don't think what he said was the worst thing in the world, it's probably what everyone thinks as a player at a club like that, but just don't say it."
Although certain players are definitely prima donnas, the clubs definitely want it their wn way and always seem to be playing the mock offended card. Are there any players globally who have gone for £30m or more in the last couple of years who aren't on over £100,000 per week? Probably not.
Also, another thing I find irksome is all of the former Liverpool players telling Sterling he should shut up and stay with Liverpool because it's for the best for his career. Firstly, Liverpool aren't a successful club at the moment, and secondly, they've shown in the last 18 months quite how awful their player recruitment is. Why should Sterling have any faith that they'll dramatically improve.
i don't think Carragher sees the irony between telling Sterling to stay put, but indicating that Berahino should move to a bigger club. They're both players at similar stages in their careers who've shown quite a bit of promise. Berahino leaving WBA for Liverpool would obviously be a step up. Sterling leaving Liverpool for a Man City or Real Madrid would obviously be a step up.
Berahino said in the week he does not believe fans will begrudge him "going on to bigger things" if he keeps the club in the Premier League, and admitted he would be ready to "push on" after securing Albion's safety.
Carragher added: "I don't think what he said was the worst thing in the world, it's probably what everyone thinks as a player at a club like that, but just don't say it."
Well firstly we are a 'big' club, regardless of recent trophy hauls, the difference between Liverpool and West Brom is huge. And secondly staying at Liverpool where he is guaranteed game time is massive in a players development, compare that to going to the likes of Man City, and/or Chelsea, and sitting on the bench but earning more. His development as a player should be his number 1 priority instead of listening to his agent and moving for the $. He is only 20 after all, there is plenty of time to win things.
The "big club" argument is one of the most redundant arguments in football - it's mainly for fans to shout out during arguments about whether their club is better than another, most players don't really care. There's a difference between a formerly successful club that has a large fanbase and strong infrastructure, and a club which is currently winning things. At Man City Sterling would compete for the title regularly, play in the Champions League and earn a significantly better wage than at Liverpool. He'd also be surrounded by better players. Liverpool have a fantastic history and a great fanbase, but that means little to a player who's primary concern is his own career over the next 10 years.
There's nothing to say Sterling won't play regularly in the first team at a side like Man City - if Samir Nasri can make frequent appearances, so can Sterling.
With regards to his own personal development, who will he learn more from:
- David Silva or Adam Lallana
- Sergio Aguero or a constantly injured Daniel Sturridge (or any other of Liverpool's strike force)
- Jesus Navas or Lazar Markovic
It's quite straight forward. Virtually all clubs are selling clubs, they can't not be, and Liverpool are no different.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
There is always a bigger club and why should he prioritise development. IN general training alongside lets say Hazard and Fabregas and supplying crosses/passes for Costa will help him develop more than playing alongside Lambert and co.
What happens if he signs a 100k a week contract today and breaks his leg so badly he can't play and never gets a new contract, where his other option was to sign a 200k a week deal elsewhere. It's easy to tell other people to turn down millions when the lower offer is miles above what you make, but it's the same as telling the average joe to stay at the 40k a year job and turn down the 60k a year job because the 40k lot helped you a bunch.
As for game time, a good player shouldn't fear the bench for better clubs, the best players join top teams playing at the highest level, train with the best players and coaches and fight their way into a first team spot. Games are only part of a players development and playing often out of position for Liverpool with less good players and coaches isn't automatically better than playing less games(potentially) but training with better coaches and better players day in day out.
Put it this way, did Ronaldo fear not being an automatic pick at utd when he joined, Rooney to Utd, Fabregas to Arsenal. It's an often used argument that a player should stay somewhere smaller and 'develop better', but there is little to no proof that is a realistic strategy. Countless players move on to the best clubs with the best players and if genuinely top players thrive in such environments.
You cant compare Sterling in his development with Ronaldo and Fabregas when they moved as they were all A) younger and B) nowhere near as far along in their development. Being able to play with better players didnt realy help the other bright young things that moved to City or Chelsea in recent times did it? It pretty much stunted their development so much that they ended up moving to the likes of Sunderland etc.
If your going to compare him to someone I suppose it would be Hazard, but he was moving to a Chelsea who didnt really have anyone comparable already on the books (the same as those above). All the teams currently that would be able to offer him the kind of money he wants have someone better in his position(s).
Edit - took Rooney out as I think he was the better player when he moved to Man U than Sterling is now.
If your going to compare him to someone I suppose it would be Hazard, but he was moving to a Chelsea who didnt really have anyone comparable already on the books (the same as those above). All the teams currently that would be able to offer him the kind of money he wants have someone better in his position(s).
Edit - took Rooney out as I think he was the better player when he moved to Man U than Sterling is now.
Last edited:
