You are right as regards Vieira's attitude throughout most of last season. As regards Gerrard, you simply can't afford him. He wants around £120,000 per week plus a signing on fee of a reported £2 million, plus the £35+ million asking price.
--- are you aware that a 30M offer from Chelsea was rejected by Liverpool? Surely Chelsea is a decent gauge of talent, albeit they let Hasselbaink go and he scored as many goals at Boro as Drogba did.
They also said Gerrerd will start as a keeper for Arsenal: http://www.kopitalk.org/forums/showf...5/o/all/fpart/1
I don't see this. You say he's loyal to the club he loves -- so why does he want to leave them six weeks after hoisting the CL trophy and proclaiming he wanted to stay? If he wanted to give a "sign of respect to Liverpool fans", maybe he shouldn't have said he wanted to stay, then turned down an offer which would make him the highest paid player in club history. Honesty shows respect; lying and/or waffling do not. Gerrard's a mercenary. Nothing wrong with that; I'm a mercenary in my profession, but at least I'm honest about it. Don't dupe yourself into believing 32M will buy loyalty, chemistry, or leadership.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=336658&cc=5901 So, for those of you who kept saying that we should get rid of Vieira to sign Gerrard because of the hell he's put us through the last two summers, I would say that we would have gotten just a younger, English version of the same thing had we signed Stevie.
He never actually said he wanted to leave, but it was pondering in his mind. I think his agent just jumped the gun a bit which isn’t surprising considering he’ll be a lot richer if Gerrard moved. And it was reported in Sky Sports news today that Gerrard has signed a long-term Liverpool contract, if that isn’t loyalty enough I don’t know what is..
His agent indicated he wanted to leave, Gerrard never said such things in person. It's understandable because I’m sure he was thinking he’ll never top winning the CL with Liverpool so, in my opinion he wanted to go out on a high…. but that’s obviously proved harder than it actually is. It’s kind of like the Vieira saga we had last season, except Vieira was set to move but when talks broke down regarding his contract(don’t believe that **************** he was spouting about not wanting to leave Arsenal, because he definitely wanted to) when Real wouldn’t pay him what he wanted. Vieira also left us in the dark and I’ll never forgive him…
Although the Chelsea bubble makes it seem otherwise, there are only a handful of players in the world worth that kind of money, and Gerrard is most certainly not one of them. Arsenal would be fools to spend that kind of cash on Gerrard.
It seems that Gerrard was pissed off at Rafa and put in the transfer request out of anger. A little time to ponder and probably some calm conversations set him back on track. It seems he didn't really want to leave but acted on impulse. Vieira is a different story as MT states.
Not exactly, because it would be an investment, Gerrard’s still young and has the massive potential to become one of the greatest midfielders this country’s ever produced. We were demanding £30 million for Vieira who was in his prime, so why is the £32 million for Gerrard so surprising? Gerrard will only get better while Vieira is getting worse with each season. And I’ve already pointed out £32 million price tag is only there because Chelsea got involved. Say we had a chance in getting Gerrard and he wanted to leave Liverpool, their board would be foolish to hold the player against his will, that’s why I know if they did sell to anyone other than Chelsea the price will be estimated around £20-25 million.
How exactly is Vieira a different story? His agent Marc Roger was clearly pulling the same crap Gerrard's agent has and even shook the club down for money I suspect AFTER Vieira dismissed him. Vieira could have left last year and chose not to. There are SEVERAL stories as to why, just as there are several stories speculated as to why in previous years. Yet he is here and his and the team's record and performance - even last season - speak for themselves year in and out. I really suspect some here would change their view utterly if Vieira's name were Thompson and Gerrard's name was Chirac. If you simply prefer English players to foreign players that's your choice. But to willingly misinterpret circumstances or to view the same circumstances differently because a player is or isn't English is wrong and unsound. And those posting here are hardly the only ones who do this. If anything that Gerrard is not only English but Huyton Scouse and a life-long Liverpool FC supporter makes his actions that much more self-centered, that much more disloyal, and that much more untrustwothy for me and I suspect more than a few LFC supporters who would know best here. In fact the real situation to compare Gerrard's to is not Vieira's at all but Ashley Cole's, and if you are willing to forgive him for such an impulsive action, why not Cole? Especially since Gerrard had actually been threatening to leave for a full year prior to this week. Cole only proceeded on his highly reckless course not after a some bust-up on the training ground but after the Board went back on the contract he and David Dein had agreed to and he felt insulted by the fact as he saw(and I'm sure Jonathan Barnett, the Chav Iago, helped him to see it this way)that the club tried to use his life-long loyalty to Arsenal to force him to accept the reduced deal without even courteously explaining the reduced offer. The story at Anfield is Gerrard was upset the club hadn't acted immediately to re-sign him and he felt slighted. So how is Ashley Cole a traitor and Gerrard just rash in this instance, and how is Patrick Vieira a mercenary and Gerrard just upset? I really don't get that at all. Only in that the situation with Gerrard is more comparable to Cole's is there a difference right now between his and Vieira's...
Here are Gerrard's exact words yesterday, as reported by Sky Sports: "I fully intended to sign a new contract after the Champions League Final but the events of the past five or six weeks have changed all that." He did not say he was pondering. Huh? So yesterday he's leaving Liverpool and you say Arsenal should get him because he's loyal. Today he's staying in Liverpool and that's displaying his loyalty? I hold to my original statement: Gerrard is a mercenary. He's jerking the fans around, and the fans are letting him get away with it because he's English. Someone else was dead on: if Vieira's name was Thompson, it would be a different story.
Loyalty is not pulling this shit two years in a row for a club that you claim to love. People here practically hung Vieira in effigy last year when he did this. Granted, it was more prolonged, but Stevie's was purely to get more money in his extension. Whether his agent was responsible for it or not doesn't matter. He's doing the same thing to the 'Pool supporters that Vieira did to us the last two summers.
Not too sure about that. Gerrard has probably been just a day or 2 away from signing on the dotted line twice in 2 years.. I'm not sure that Vieira has got that close, and certainly no more than once...
You mean with another club? I know, but I'm just saying that Vieira didn't exactly do much to quiet things, especially last year.
Whoa there. I wasn't comparing Gerrard to Vieira. Two seperate incidents. From what I have read, Gerrard wanted a new contract, wasn't quite happy, then had a major bust-up with Rafa. That seemed to have thrown him over the edge and he put in a transfer request. Thus a rash reaction. Last year he stated he wanted to play for a team that won trophys and he didn't see Pool moving in that direction. After the recent turnaround in the CL, I recall him pledging to want to stay at Anfield. I don't claim to know all the dealings with the club and what his agent was telling him. Just my take. As for Vieira last year, he was with a team that won the league unbeaten and was at the top of its game. Happy club, good pay, etc. Vieira then looked for more money, fame, and potential trophies but didn't get the pay at RM. He then took stock of his situation, and re-evaluated his options. That was my take. It wasn't a mercenary tactic, just business, but he handled it poorly.
Not jumping on you here but you point that you made about mad theory's points was comparing the situations as he clearly did in the post you quoted Fair play there - we ALL are speculating 90% or more of the time. It's the vicious that keeps the red-tops in business in London. I just think there is perfectly reasoned speculation in Vieira's circumstances over the years supporters too often have ignored in judging Vieira and his actions much the way they have in Ashley Cole's case this year. I remember Peter Hill-Wood publicly insulting Vieira when he announced his desire to seek an improved contract saying "he must be joking" at a time when Vieira was playing his very best football for Arsenal. I would daresay those kind of disrespectful comments when clubs like Real Madrid or ManU or Juventus or Barcelona are making thier desire to sign you known could have had just a wee bit to do with he flirtations with new clubs at least one of those years. Vieira himself said before signing his last extension the club had approved a bid from Real Madrid and he chose not to go. This is not last summer but two summers back, when the speculation was actually much quieter surrounding Vieira. Even the first serious summer of speculation and the one he was most likely to leave he was uneasy about the Club and Board's ambition to win and do what it took to ensure that happened. I really think the media have milked that first summer's anxiety every bit as much as Vieira has genuinely created any genuine cause for renewed anxiety, perhaps even moreso. Any odds on Gerrard transfer dramas in the papers summer after summer now... I just don't know how he handled it poorly. Neither he or his agent ever said anything. In fact that is the reason I belive this was really the closest he came to leaving. Whatever was happening and whoever initiated was and remains essentially unknown - at least in the sense that any agenda Vieira had before-hand was unknown to any party at Arsenal or even the media. There is strong speculation a French International at Real Madrid(David Dein himself alleged this)-obviously Zidane, perhaps Makalele although he was already at Chelsea but had played for RM had approached Vieira. In fact the rumored bust-up between Henry, Pires on one side and Vieira at Euro 2004 could very well have centered around this alleged incident. Clearly now that is plausible and believable but speculation all the same. ALL of this is really. So why are still willing to overlook what Gerrard clearly did himself or through his agent that is not speculation(the reasons are, the actions are not)but still look at Vieira as some traitorous treacherous creature? Not you neccessarily surfcam, but we all know there are certain people here who pick and choose the speculation to believe out of agendas of their own despite it being contradicted by the facts...
I was actually trying to state that the two cases are very seperate in nature. Lord knows I rarely ally myself with MT!!! No offense taken, BTW. In the Vieira situation last summer, IMO, it was handled poorly by his not ever saying anything for so long. Nobody knew of his intentions until the 11th hour. This is why many fans and probably the club were upset, because it put them in a jam. If he left, there was very little time to make a replacement signing and sort the team out. The club was left in limbo for quite awhile. Now Gerrard is no saint either with all the transfer speculations. But as pertains to this latest quick "I want to stay, I want to go, I just re-signed" saga, it seemed there was a lot of rash emotion and it wasn't a player shopping for higher wages or better options.
Cool - I wasn't pointing out anything but that by referring to his post which DID compare their behavior you were comparing the incidents. No need to feel defensive. I agree with MT on some occasions - just not these. Ever. Fair enough. Here's what I don't get. I'm not necessarily directing this at anyone, but why do you think even Arsenal supporters seem willing to give Gerrard the benefit of the doubt here they are utterly unwilling to give to TWO Arsenal players in similar circumstances. I'm not willing to say Vieira has never used his value to other clubs to get more money at Highbury, but he has never gone THIS far or even close to it really, nor has he made anything like the money Gerrard's threat earned him here. Gerrard had been angling for 90,000 GBP a week while Liverpool were not moving from 75,000 GBP. But 24 hours after he basically quits Anfield Gerrard will be signing a contract worth AT LEAST 100,000 GBP a week. Some Rumors suggest it is considerably more than that even. But he was upset and his loyalty changed his mind. I reckon there we're at least 25,000 morre weekly reasons he came around to stay. Yet he is still more loyal than Vieira. He is also more loyal than Cole who reacted as many here believe Gerrard did as there were suggestions the Club no longer wanted him or respected him. True or not, the fact is the Club did renege on an agreement of 60,000 GBP a week without warning or explanation or even an apology to smooth it over and tried to use Cole's loyalty to get him to accept the lesser deal as fait accompli, which is what really upset Cole according to his quotes. This did not happen to Gerrard. He pushed for more money all last year all summer and even more the last 24 hours. But he is more loyal than Cole who even abandoned an appeal of his fine which could have cost Arsenal a GREAT deal in the long run? Gerrard blackmailed Liverpool, plain and simple. He blackmailed the Club, the City, and the Supporters and he and his agent hit the jackpot. They knew after Istanbul Gerrard was priceless if not to Benitez then to the Kop. They knew all along they could get the improved contract, but now they could get even more if they just pushed it to the brink. It got done overnight, for goodness sake! At 75,000 - no. At 90,000 - no. But for at least 100,000. And here's a true Liverpool lad in every way doing this to his beloved club. Neither Vieira or Ashley Cole have set out to blackmail Arsenal, no matter what they may actually have done. Vieira has like many players thought to leave to win more and bigger prizes. And Ashley actually had some reason perhaps to feel what Gerrard claims dubiously motivated this sudden series of changes of - no I can't use the word heart here - mind. But posters like MT in their zeal for more English or all English at Arsenal can't see what has really happened here. I'm not asking anyone to change their view on Vieira or Cole but don't insult them unfairly by claiming Steven Gerrard is more loyal save to himself than they are. Sorry, surfcam. That's not meant for you but this thread, but I would be curious to your thoughts on that. Cheers...
First, this is a good discussion and I haven't taken any comments harshly. The nationality of the player is not important to me, though it may be to others. Also, Cole is English as well. Also, the club affiliation isn't a part of my thinking, though it may be subliminally because it wasn't my club and heart that was effected by all of this. But I didn't feel that Gerrard was blackmailing the Club. Like we both agreed, we only know so much of the story, but I recall Gerrard stating he wanted to renew his contract with Pool. Now, he would have been stupid not to ask for more money, especially after he had just hoisted the CL trophy. And of course he asked for a high wage. That is simple economics and we all do that. Start high in case you have to go lower, then you arrive at a wage you and the club are happy with. From his statements, it seemed he and the club couldn't come to terms though, and he felt the club didn't want him. I don't know if the agent was whispering in his ear or what, but that is his statement. So, he feels like he and the club are on the outs, then he has a major bust-up with Rafa, and this seals the deal for him that the club isn't going to sign him. I don't know if the club said they wanted him but at a much lower salary or not, and if he knew that or not. So he puts in a transfer request, then goes home to cool off. He stated that he then talked more with his family and advisors, then again to Pool, and they cleared it up and came to an agreement. I'm sure the extra money helped out too. Cole, I don't think was really dis-loyal but really stupid. He felt he deserved better wages and rightly so. It is also normal to want to know what his worth is on the market and would be irresponsible if he didn't. He may have even thought the club didn't want him. But, setting up and attending a meeting that he knows is agianst regulations was dumb. By doing this and getting caught, it put him in a worse position with the club because now Arsenal are back up against a wall. I think most people thought Arsenal had been good to Cole, could have worked through everything, and yet he pulls a fast one that puts the club in an awkward situation. That was my feeling and likely the feeling of most fans and the club as well. He isn't a vilain, but was dumb, and hopefully like Gerrard, can work it out with the club (though hopefully for less money for our sake ). Vieira in a way did somewhat blackmail the club, if you want to use those types of terms. It actually though was more like holding the club for ransom. If he wanted to leave, he should have put in a transfer request as soon as possible and let the bidding begin. Instead, he held off signing a contract, waited to see what came to the table, and told nobody of his intentions for almost the entire transfer period. This put the club in a bad situation as well because if they didn't get Vieira to sign, then where were they? Left without their captain and a key part of the team with very little time to hit the transfer market for a replacement. As requested, these are my takes on the three situations. The ones involving Arsenal may be a bit skewed because of my feelings for the club, but here they are none the less.