'Chelsea are to sign teenage striker Daniel Sturridge from big-spending Premier League rivals Manchester City.

The fee for the 19-year-old will be decided by a tribunal with the two clubs unable to agree on a deal.

Sturridge will be out of contract at the end of June and has refused a new contract offer at Eastlands.

However, Chelsea will be liable to pay a fee as the player is under the age of 24 and therefore can not move for nothing under the Bosman ruling. '



Sturridge is a greedy twat.

yeah but he wouldnt get a game at city either due to all the new signings
good move

__________________

Would he get a game for Chelsea though? Anelka, Drogba, Kalou, and they are looking to bring in another front man.

more of a chance definitely
kalou is crap, drogba and anelka obv front two but sturridge will get game time

__________________

Wouldnt get a game at City nor will he at Chelsea, i think they should stick him on loan when they do get him.

__________________

Are you off your trolley??

Kalou is crap?

Only a Manc would say that!

I can't begin to explain how wrong you are...

I think we should Sign Sturridge, he's young, he's English and with the right guidance he could become world class

BUT if we get Pato like Ancelotti and the fans want, we won't need Sturridge..

Also, we did just sell a very good young striker called Ben Sahar to Espanyol for an undisclosed fee.. So he could be a replacement for him in the long term

Who knows..

nope i stand by my comment

__________________

Spot on pal.


P.s stick around, you seem to like a bit football banter which is whats needed on here, ciao x

__________________

Sturridge is everything that is wrong with football - and for the sake of every other youngster who shows a bit of promise out there - I hope that his career fails miserably so that it may be a lesson to future players of what happens when you are too greedy, too early.

That doesnt really matter to you though does it?

The very next sentence sums it up really.