Interesting comments by Sol

pure speculation, of course, but i somewhat doubt that neither he nor THFC (the club, not the fans) feel that there's anything to be gained by reminding anyone of that former association. i don't mean that as a criticism, by the way, and i consider his relative silence on spurs* to be about as high a road as he can take. not that it's not his prerogative to comment, mind, but he can be forgiven for thinking (if he does) that it's simply not worth the reaction - even if he were to be complimentary ... which he probably wouldn't.

likewise, the club never has a word to say about sol campbell in any capacity. when issuing a 'greatest 100 spurs players' video, for example, he's not included. it's not snub ... everybody knows he's one of our best 100 players ... it's just that nobody - unless they want to stir up some shit, i.e., fans - wants to bring up the subject of sol campbell at spurs.

it's a shame, in a sense, because players who contribute that much to a club typically deserve recognition for it; but it's just a situation where "let's move on" is the best you can do.


*he's said his bit on spurs fans (or at least the abusive ones - which in his case is the vast majority), which is fair enough; but i really can't recall him saying much of anything about his (considerable) time at the lane.

sure. and what's more, not only was he a tremendous player for us, he was also (unlike adebayor and gallas [to use the examples sited]) beloved. he came up through our youth ranks, and was head and shoulders better than anything else we had. he was perceived to have been 'spurs through-and-through'. when he refused to be sold to man u ("i'm concentrating on playing for spurs right now ... contract negotiations with THFC can wait until summer."), for example, we naively took it as wanting to stay at the lane (also, to be fair, because he'd said that, too).

which is, of course, what made it all that much worse. the better he was, the more it hurt. so while we all know how good he was for us, he'll never get 'recognition' for it. it'd be like praising himmler for his highly developed administrative skills.*



*apologies for what is a fundamentally preposterous (and potentially offensive) analogy. my point is merely that his 'virtues' magnified his 'vice', if you will.

it is. and again, in a sense it's a bit of a shame. but, then, you can't really expect most yids to be as level and objective about that filthy bastard as i am.

when he's commented, the only thing i've heard him say is (i'm paraphrasing), "... you want to surround yourself with the best players, and at that time, there really wasn't any question ...". in other words, he wanted to move up to a club where he had better chances of accomplishing something. fair enough ... no one will argue that arsenal were better than spurs in 2001. and there's also the logistical simplicity when one considers the hassles of having to move homes, leave family (he's from london), etc.

and, of course, there's another consideration. at that time, as the ramifications of the bosman ruling were still playing out, lot's of clubs were still sorting out how they were going to deal with the relationship between transfer fees and wages. in other words, some players hypothesized that signing clubs would be more likely to pay higher wages to a player who required no transfer fee; that is, they'd be willing to make the same basic investment in a player, but it would all go to the player's wages, rather than a big chunk of it going to his former club. that's perfectly rational, of course, and i'm not implying anything essentially unethical about it; but it wasn't clear whether most clubs would go down that route, as the long term implications (at that time) were viewed as potentially devestating for all clubs as they tried to hold onto players. anyway, arsenal did just that, and the result was that sol got some very, very hefty wages at AFC. it was basicly a simple case of what we call 'free agency', and is perfectly common in american professional sport. interestingly enough, it was also right around this time when wenger came out and announced that he'd never let any of his players play out their contracts; either extend it or get sold, basicly ... which is how modern football now essentially works. the current theoretical modus operandi for such a situation as ours (club wants to sell, player won't go), of course, is that you do whatever it takes to make him realize it's not in his interest to stay - bench him to drive down his value, or whatever - but these dynamics were still playing out at the time. in retrospect, it's easy to say that spurs were naive in how they dealt with sol; but at the time they would have been perceived as highly cynical in treating a player of such standing at the club in such a way ... in forcing him out. now, i have no idea what the other interested clubs (barca being the most reported) were offering in wages ... regardless, he chose who he chose.

anyway, the reason for the venom from our side boils down to a couple of things. A) as implied above, someone (man u) had come in for him while he was still under contract at spurs. they offered some 10m+quid (a very big transfer back then), which spurs were prepared to take; but campbell vetoed the deal, saying he was happy at the club. but when spurs went to renegotiate/extend his contract that season, his response was that it was a distraction, that he was too busy playing for spurs, and that it'd just have to wait until the summer. needless to say, when summer arrived (and spurs were ready to offer him huge money by the standards of the day), ol' sol didn't really have much interest in contract talks (with us, anyway), at all. not particularly endearing, no matter where he goes.

but B) was the main one ... he went to arsenal. insult to injury ... simple as that. nice one, sulzeer.

it's really not that cut and dry. actually, i think most folks would rate ledley king as technically superior. thierry henry did, calling him the best defender he'd faced in the english game whilst he (henry) was at his peak at arsenal. given ledley's injury problems, though, i suspect most neutrals would have preferred having campbell on their books to king, in their respective primes. a cynic might well point out that had king not had his injury problems, he'd've likely fucked off to greener pastures, as well.

regardless, it's not that spurs fans don't recognize sol's quality - it's that it simply doesn't count toward any residual appreciation of him. for quite obvious reasons.