Sources: Brian Moore
Published: 7:30AM BST 16 Jul 2009A few seasons ago, with Chelsea flush with the millions Roman Abramovich pumped into the club, the Matthew Harding Stand taunted Liverpool’s Steven Gerrard, telling him he would never play for Chelsea. To rub it in they followed this by singing: “We’ll buy him anyway.” All that was missing was the waving of bundles of £20 notes.
Gerrard’s refusal to join Chelsea, which was closer than some think, was down to loyalty to Liverpool or if you are a conspiracy theorist, the result of an orchestrated campaign of abuse towards Gerrard and his family. The anger of Liverpool fans was drowned out with cries about the freedom of choice and the like.
Recent approaches from the new moneybags club, Manchester City, for Chelsea captain John Terry has shown the Stamford Bridge faithful the reality of being on the wrong end of an economic mismatch. It isn’t a pleasant feeling and they don’t like it. Nobody should be pleased at a smash-and-grab attempt for a player that came through a club’s ranks and climbed to the rarefied heights of leading his country; but doesn’t it say: do unto others?
In a sane world the signing of a five-year contract, which includes the ludicrous stipulation that a player will remain the club’s highest earner even in times of injury and poor form, should be a reliable indication of a player’s long-term plans. Clubs should be safe in the knowledge that a player who is a multi-millionaire and makes a decision will not have his head turned by money alone.
When that player says his commitment has been shown by signing such a document, we should be able to take him at face value.
Two strands of thought emerge from those Chelsea fans who believe Terry can do no wrong and will stay. The first is that this is another episode of Terry renegotiating his contract. If it is, it is becoming increasingly tedious. Having signed a magnificently rewarding contract only recently, it is distasteful for this to be in play again. At some point a club has to say enough is enough, whoever the player. If, as others claim, this is just Terry seeking reassurances over the direction of the club, there are a number of points raised by this. It is a dangerous precedent to allow any player to be the judge of whether a club is, or is not, planning properly.
He is unlikely to be privy to the right information to make such a call and it is facile to argue that players know which other players are the most talented. That is an entirely different issue. Unless Terry has his own short, medium and long-term strategy, one that accounts for the multiple competitions, player fitness and form and so on, he is above himself in believing he knows best.
A final aside on this point; given that Terry would be 34 at the end of his contract, there is more than a slim possibility that with his injury record and fantastically committed style of play, the time will come when a manager should consider whether playing Terry or a younger player is the best choice. This is unavoidable, but how much faith would you have in any player being sufficiently objective to step aside for a player that shows promise but no medals?
Accepting, for argument’s sake, that clubs should allow a player this largesse, Terry’s method of seeking reassurance is hardly the right way. As captain of the club and a player expressly lauded by his incoming manager, Terry, if he has genuine concerns, should air them in private. He can be as forceful behind closed doors as he wishes, but to create uncertainty and risk alienating supporters is hardly in the club’s best interests. If this really is Terry’s motivation, why could he not tell Chelsea that unless he heard the right things he would then talk to City? To do this while asking for assurances is to put a gun to the head of his employers, who will now have to slap him down or swallow the public embarrassment of having it known that Terry has ultimate control over their club. Whatever explanations are offered, this is a simple test of loyalty; similar to the one that faced Frank Lampard about a year ago.
Another player that brought success to Chelsea, and without Abramovich’s cash, was Gianluca Vialli. Terry could do no better than consider the interview he gave to Radio Five Live recently, when Vialli set out the issue in a quiet and dignified way, showing common sense and that he had considered the point from the correct perspective. “I ask myself, when I finish playing does it matter whether I have in the bank £50 million or £61 million?” the Italian said.
If the answer to the above is affirmative then that shows a warped set of values and not one of a true competitor.
You may argue that in moving to City, Terry would be proving the reverse because he is taking on a challenge to thrust City into the top echelon of English and European football. This would hold water, had Terry delivered to his adoring Chelsea faithful everything they sought, but he has not. It is not fair to lay at Terry’s feet Chelsea’s failure to beat Manchester United in the 2008 Champions League final. Had Didier Drogba demonstrated possession of a brain or Nicolas Anelka shown courage, Terry would not have had to take the penalty in the first place.
Terry owes Chelsea that trophy before he can say his work is done and that he needs a new challenge. Deliver that holy grail and no Chelsea fan would have cause for complaint. Go now and it can only be about cash; no, sorry, even more cash, and that is not the player that Chelsea fans love.
Posts
