Daniel Sturridge: The Real Deal?

Mark Hughes, or more accurately Manchester City have ended negotiations with Daniel Sturridge.

They have made their final offer to the soon-to-be out of contact 19-year old.

There are two distinct camps of public opinion on this issue.

The first says that Sturridge is a money grabbing young man who, although immensely talented remains firmly rooted in the "fantastic prospect" column of the clubs balance sheet.

The second says that he is so good that Manchester City should simply pay him the money, to use the Loreal tag line—because he's worth it.

What is true is that Daniel Sturridge has excelled at every level he has played at and is definitely good enough to earn a very good living as a professional footballer.

It is also true that many other clubs are watching the situation closely, and are rumoured to be willing to offer him what City are not.

Even with all that said, however, Sturridge is far from a proven, world-class performer.

I saw his awful, ham-fisted efforts as a substitute against WBA towards the end of the season. He performed so badly, he even refused to celebrate when he scored his tap in goal.

If his value had been decided on what he produced in those 30 or so minutes then he would likely need to get a job at Tesco's to supplement his income.

With all of this in mind, it is sometimes worthwhile thinking of things differently (a play on the idea of Cartesian questions).

So what has Mark Hughes seen in Daniel Sturridge that makes him NOT offer the contract the wonder kid wants?

Why have no clubs actually offered to buy him out of Manchester City?

In short, what has Daniel Sturridge done to make people doubt him?

Manchester City's contract offer is, in part, tied to games played. As such, Sturridges' advisers have said no.

That paints a picture of a player who won't be played very much, which leads me to assume that he isn't as good as we are all led to believe. After all, if he was THAT good, he would play AND as such earn.

But the refusal to sign such a contract means that even Sturridge doesn't expect to play very often.

So much for the massively confident player he is supposed to be.

There is also the fact that Hughes' predecessor, Sven Goran Erickson, didn't think it necessary to gain Sturridges signature on a new contract.

Why was that I wonder? Did he not consider it worthwhile?

So now, two managers have not been willing to break the bank to keep Sturridge at the club, and they know him better than any fan or reporter ever will.

I think we all agree that Sturridge is a player of massive potential, but it seems there are flaws in his make-up that cannot be ignored.

If Manchester City doesn't keep him, he may well find that the kind words and promises of riches don't materialize.

Only time will tell who is right.