Someone on another thread meantioned players not staying at clubs as long as they used to, but is this actually true? Are there no players now who spend many years at one club? Did players in the past not move around much? Did we never see top players move between the big teams.
We've had RVP move from Arsenal to United, as Frank Stapleton did back in the 80s; I reckon things are pretty similar now to how they were in other eras, do we get unjustifiably misty-eyed about players of the past and loyalties compared to today, have things really changed that much?
Is There Really Less Loyalty?
posted on 6/9/12
And Rooney!
posted on 6/9/12
There's many United players who've stuck around but it's easy to stay when trophies are a regular occurance, so I thought I'd use some other examples.
posted on 6/9/12
Good point Lambsy.
Chelsea have had a lot of loyal players over the years. Maybe due to the high wages paid, the location of the club (smack bang in the middle of the nicest area in London), some trophies won and the glamour of the club.
And then there's Gerrard at Liverpool. He wanted to leave but gangsters didn't let him go!
posted on 6/9/12
(When I say the glamour of the club I mean since Roman. Going for parties on a billionaires yacht is pretty enticing)
posted on 6/9/12
i do think it has a lot to do with where you are born or at what age you break into a team.
you look at scholes, neville, gerrard, carragher, terry, lampard, giggs, all local lads ( or players who broke into their teams at an early age) who have been 1 club players and would give their life for the club the play for.
now look at city, for all their money, thats what the players are there for, not their love of the club.
posted on 6/9/12
Its a myth. It hasnt changed at all. There are as many transfers now as there has ever been. Clubs who get relegated or promoted chop and change a lot. But most established PL clubs have a couple of players whom have been long serving stalwarts (Liverpool Everton United Chelsea Spurs Arsenal etc) like they have always had.
posted on 6/9/12
That was my impression also Whiteside which makes me wonder why people have such little regard for today's players as if they're less worthy compared to Latter Day Saints!?
posted on 6/9/12
Lambsy
its because fans and media only see that obscene sums of money they earn these days when players switch clubs. Players salaries weren't even discussed or disclosed back in the day. They were pretty much irrelevant.
posted on 6/9/12
The media and some fans get obsessed with the money, it makes me laugh when they say how much a player earns per week as if their contract stipulates their wages on a weekly basis.
But of course if they said they were being paid £20 million over 4 years it just sounds like a top player earning top money like the film stars and TV Personalities do; but by breaking it down to a weekly wage they make a ready comparison to the wage of the average fan, which is really quite sad and ridiculous in my opinion!!!
posted on 6/9/12
I think you'll find that most of this perception comes from players who are now pundits, who played in the 70s and 80s, who will understandably not wnat to paint them selves as disloyal etc. much easier to call Tevez and Nasri Mercenries than themselves. Also could be said the sums of involved are perhaps much greater