39 minutes ago, ozboy said:

Although not the signing I envisaged at the start of the  window I can see that Sterling  is a proven pl performer for quite a few years and probably has a bit left in  him for a season or two. Makele was a hand me down. 

You are wrong on that Oz.

Maka was a regular in the Real side, loved by his coach and team mates however the Real president viewed him as just a water carrier, and not a star or galactico not worthy of a top salary. I believe he was on 40k a week there and he got bumped to 100k to come to us.

So while the Real coach and players wanted him to stay, the president felt he was better off cashing in on the unfashionable Maka. Dumb move.

6 hours ago, Mod said:

For me its a bit of a deflating (potential) signing.

To think we once were snapping up Fabregas, Costa, Hazard, etc.... and now "Raheem Sterling", its the kind of signing West Ham would make! It's quite a reminder that Roman has gone now.

Still, any signing at the moment is welcome or we might have to borrow some of the womens team next season.

 

Hazard, Costa ok I get that but with Fabregas I disagree. He was not a regular in Barca's 11, hence why they were willing to let him go. I was buzzing though when Fabregas joined us but my point is, is his situation any different than Sterling? How is Sterling more deflating than Fabregas is what I am getting at.

9 minutes ago, STATS said:

Hazard, Costa ok I get that but with Fabregas I disagree. He was not a regular in Barca's 11, hence why they were willing to let him go. I was buzzing though when Fabregas joined us but my point is, is his situation any different than Sterling? How is Sterling more deflating than Fabregas is what I am getting at.

Fair question. I don’t see how the situation is all that different. 

Really not sure about this to be honest. Maybe I would give him a chance because obviously he has quality and he's a proven player, but his attitude and character are unlikeable to say the least, if you ask me. Also I don't like the fact we are pushing for City's leftovers but it is what it is right now. There are many reasons why he isn't a starter.

50/50 for me. Realistically it may happen, that is probably the best we can do in this window...

3 hours ago, axman2526 said:

You are wrong on that Oz.

Maka was a regular in the Real side, loved by his coach and team mates however the Real president viewed him as just a water carrier, and not a star or galactico not worthy of a top salary. I believe he was on 40k a week there and he got bumped to 100k to come to us.

So while the Real coach and players wanted him to stay, the president felt he was better off cashing in on the unfashionable Maka. Dumb move.

So he was a hand me down by the President. And yes it was a dumb move but they do happen regularly. People make bad sales as often as bad buys, goodness knows we have made a few. 

at the moment anyone would be an upgrade to our current attack which I beleive wasted the most chances to score in previous season. 

plus we for sure don’t have a player who can go one on one forward, all of them hit the wall or they just pass backwards. we were all waiting for Pulisic and CHO to be the next at least close to Hazard, sadly never happened.

some say we are after players who would play at Everton, Newcastle etc and since Roman is gone we are already regressing. my view is that after we sent off Emenalo our signings haven’t worked as we wished. they were mostly shots in the dark, and most important they were not managers players they were board players. if this will change with Todd we shall see. isn’t this what we were craving for?

 

I never liked Sterling (as an apponent) so yes I am on with this signing.

 

11 hours ago, Snedger said:

I’m not a scout and I don’t even watch a lot of football these days, but surely the club employ someone somewhere that is paid for their skill of spotting talent in the leagues around the world?

It’s more politics in a way for me, but buying a player they have made very clear they don’t want (and haven’t used much for a while) is embarrassing. It’s apparent to me that no City fan is remotely disappointed that he is leaving or that he is signing for us. Same for Arsenal signing Jesus.

And he isn’t going to make us title challengers, so is it worth it anyway? There must be better value and cringe free signings out there somewhere?

City fans opinion here:

Jesus - people are sad to see him go and we'd rather keep him, he's a vastly underrated team player who has a great all round game, great work ethic and a decent goal contribution record. He never complains, does the dirty work, loved scoring in big games. He just didn't have that killer striker instinct that Aguero (and hopefully Haaland) have to make him a 30 goal a season striker. If you just look at stats and see highlights you make find him underwhelming, but when watched for 90 minutes week in week out he's a fantastic asset to any team, I'd be amazed if Arsenal didn't find him a good signing.

 

Sterling - people are probably a bit less sad to see him go, I fully appreciate what a great signing he has been for us but it has started to feel a bit like his time here has been winding down. This last couple of seasons his form hasn't been what it used to be, when he's on form he looks unstoppable, but when he's not on form you can wonder how he's a professional footballer. If you can get him back firing to his form from a couple of seasons ago he'll be an amazing signing, but even in current form he's hardly going to be a bad signing, consistently contributes 20+ goals a season as a winger. Just seems like a reset from both City and Sterlings point of view may be best for both, and this may well benefit Chelsea - he's PL proven, still only 27 and will always bring that threat of a goal with his intelligence and movement. He's also the sort of player who causes Citys defence problems, so no doubt you'll have the joy of him causing some havoc against us (and hopefully missing his easy chance!).

5 hours ago, axman2526 said:

You are wrong on that Oz.

Maka was a regular in the Real side, loved by his coach and team mates however the Real president viewed him as just a water carrier, and not a star or galactico not worthy of a top salary. I believe he was on 40k a week there and he got bumped to 100k to come to us.

So while the Real coach and players wanted him to stay, the president felt he was better off cashing in on the unfashionable Maka. Dumb move.

"Why add another layer of gold paint to the Bentley when you're selling the engine" Zidane

12 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Should have saved the money and gone for this guy. Back me up @Valerie and @Munkworth

 

@axman2526, be more ambitious, let's sign half the Southampton squad, right @Munkworth !?

4 minutes ago, Valerie said:

@axman2526, be more ambitious, let's sign half the Southampton squad, right @Munkworth !?

 

Worked for Liverpool

12 hours ago, Argo said:

We only got Fabregas because Barca had no room for him (and this was when Xavi was past his best) and Wenger said no to a reunion. 

I wasn't here at that time but where i was was opinions were very mixed.

 

6 hours ago, STATS said:

Hazard, Costa ok I get that but with Fabregas I disagree. He was not a regular in Barca's 11, hence why they were willing to let him go. I was buzzing though when Fabregas joined us but my point is, is his situation any different than Sterling? How is Sterling more deflating than Fabregas is what I am getting at.

 

6 hours ago, mwblue10 said:

Fair question. I don’t see how the situation is all that different. 

I think you're all missing the point of the post.

Its not how Fab joined or his game-time at Barca then, its the general profile and calibre of the players mentioned. Big players that you could half expect at that time, that would slot in and do a job and possibly have success at Chelsea. I could of added many players to the list including Havertz and even Morata. Big names that join that have a buzz about them.

For me, Sterling isn't one of those players, and as mentioned, its the type of signing you would expect of West Ham or similar. The main point was that we seem like we are coming past the times of signing 'buzz' player names.

I'll support Raheem fully should he sign and hope he assists and bangs in some goals. He could end up being great for us which I'd hope. But, would he still be a target if Roman was still here? I doubt it. Is he any better than a 20/21 Pulisic? Nope!

the perfect example that show of benefit for a player to sometimes is move on was pirlo when he joined juventus

he was finishid and we all know what happened

Even a not prime sterling is a clear upgrade to werner/ziyech

no doubts about that 

23 minutes ago, Mod said:

 

 

I think you're all missing the point of the post.

Its not how Fab joined or his game-time at Barca then, its the general profile and calibre of the players mentioned. Big players that you could half expect at that time, that would slot in and do a job and possibly have success at Chelsea. I could of added many players to the list including Havertz and even Morata. Big names that join that have a buzz about them.

For me, Sterling isn't one of those players, and as mentioned, its the type of signing you would expect of West Ham or similar. The main point was that we seem like we are coming past the times of signing 'buzz' player names.

I'll support Raheem fully should he sign and hope he assists and bangs in some goals. He could end up being great for us which I'd hope. But, would he still be a target if Roman was still here? I doubt it. Is he any better than a 20/21 Pulisic? Nope!

Would Pulisic be a regular starter for England? 

25 minutes ago, Mod said:

Is he any better than a 20/21 Pulisic? Nope!

🤣🤣🤣

Ridiculous comment.

Sterling was a better player at 18 at Liverpool than Pulisic has ever had the potential to be.

There's an absolute chasm in ability between them.

20/21 Pulisics 4 league goals in the entire season were not some bench mark.  

There's no conceivable way Sterling could not be a massive upgrade on Pulisic.

Edited June 28, 20224 yr by HazardousChoice

28 minutes ago, Mod said:

 

Is he any better than a 20/21 Pulisic? Nope!

Probably similar profile and calibre to the Pulisic in the second half of Lamps season during the purple patch. If we could have that Pulisic all the time, we'd be fine. Sadly that's not the case so Sterling makes sense to me. 

7 minutes ago, ozboy said:

Would Pulisic be a regular starter for England? 

He'd never have made a single England squad.

England may actually have double figures when it comes to more talented Wingers than Pulisic.

He certainly wouldn't have ever played for Chelsea if he was English.

Edited June 28, 20224 yr by HazardousChoice

Just now, HazardousChoice said:

He'd never have made a single England squad.

England may actually have double figures when it comes to more talented Wingers than Pulisic.

Your constant tirade of Pulisic is getting incredibly tedious now. 

11 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

Your constant tirade of Pulisic is getting incredibly tedious now. 

His constant sh*t performances over his 7 year career is incredibly tedious.

People like yourself constantly bringing up the one good month he's had in his entire 7 year career is tedious. A once in a career purple patch is not reflective of his general level of performance.

There's no argument that Sterling isn't a massive upgrade on Pulisic and that Pulisic would have got games for England.

We really need the upgrade.

Edited June 28, 20224 yr by HazardousChoice

3 hours ago, bisright1 said:

"Why add another layer of gold paint to the Bentley when you're selling the engine" Zidane

Zizou put it perfectly. A key player, not a hand me down.

 

Pulisic is a sick note and nowhere near sterling, Doesnt mean he wont get there and have a drastic turn around but being injured all the time will ruin his career.

I thought we had the new hazard but hes just not effective enough, Ashly cole was a class above and he was a defender!

Hazadouschoice must be pulisic's agent or his mrs!

32 minutes ago, Kantesmini said:

Pulisic is a sick note and nowhere near sterling, Doesnt mean he wont get there and have a drastic turn around but being injured all the time will ruin his career.

He was actually injury free from November onwards last season.

8 hours ago, wizardous said:

Really not sure about this to be honest. Maybe I would give him a chance because obviously he has quality and he's a proven player, but his attitude and character are unlikeable to say the least, if you ask me. Also I don't like the fact we are pushing for City's leftovers but it is what it is right now. There are many reasons why he isn't a starter.

50/50 for me. Realistically it may happen, that is probably the best we can do in this window...

Attitude and character? What's he done? 

4 hours ago, Mod said:

 

 

I think you're all missing the point of the post.

Its not how Fab joined or his game-time at Barca then, its the general profile and calibre of the players mentioned. Big players that you could half expect at that time, that would slot in and do a job and possibly have success at Chelsea. I could of added many players to the list including Havertz and even Morata. Big names that join that have a buzz about them.

For me, Sterling isn't one of those players, and as mentioned, its the type of signing you would expect of West Ham or similar. The main point was that we seem like we are coming past the times of signing 'buzz' player names.

I'll support Raheem fully should he sign and hope he assists and bangs in some goals. He could end up being great for us which I'd hope. But, would he still be a target if Roman was still here? I doubt it. Is he any better than a 20/21 Pulisic? Nope!

20/21 Pulisic? For me yes, infact I'll say any version of Pulisic bar the restart period (which is still serving to protect him from deserved criticism to this very day).

Let's say for argument sake Fabregas of 27 was avaliable today in the same position he was in (struggling for game time with a release clause) do I think we could attract him? Absolutely. I feel it's a bit harsh to say Sterling is a WHU type signing given City themselves signed him and didn't want to let him go.

Regarding big names is subjective. The big big names at the peak of their powers never really looked at us even in the early Roman days unless they were mitigating circumstances that put off the likes of Real/Barca etc or they already tried those clubs and were sent packing after giving them their peak years (Deco).

5 hours ago, Valerie said:

@axman2526, be more ambitious, let's sign half the Southampton squad, right @Munkworth !?

 

1 hour ago, Argo said:

He was actually injury free from November onwards last season.

He has had recurring injury's since his arrival which has a knock on effect even with good recovery times, Given a good run of games in full fitness and in form you would like to think he will give a good return but every time he gets close oops there goes the neighbourhood and he's limping off! 

I suspect he's been available but was still making a recovery, Players with his speedy fast legs and play you don't like to see struggle with injury records

Otherwise Christ knows my best guess would be TT just doesn't rate him enough and prefers to explore his options thus less game time