I think it works both ways. Some players leave clubs for more money (and in this day and age there is a lot of money to make and people would be stupid not to take it) but also clubs are less loyal to their players and want/need to sell players who may not want to leave for big money.

Take RVP for example. There was a huge rumour going around just before he signed for us that he wanted to stay at Arsenal after seeing the signings they'd made but Arsene told him he'd be sold because they needed the money back from his sale to pay for the other 3 signings.

I'm sure there are more examples of clubs cashing in on players who don't want to leave a club (like Ji Sung Park and Hugo Lloris)

i dont see it as disloyal??

what loyalty do clubs show players who they no longer want??

what loyalty did fergie show becks, stam, cole, yorke??

all players under contract who were sold because the manager didnt want them anymore, no loyalty shown.

at the end of the day contracts are only there to protect players and clubs to ensure both can get some money, not to tie them down to the end of it.

people cant have it both ways.

sorry rob, didnt see your post, pretty much at what im getting at...great minds and all that

lol, no prob Dunc

There should be no loyalty shown either by club or the player. It is just a marriage of convinience.

We fans demand loyalty from our players but as soon as they hit bad form,
" xyz should be sold"
"If another club offers 20 mil, i will personally drive him to their training ground"

Similarly, even the managers want a player at the club only as long as he is providing his worth on the field. And this is the way it should be.

Also i do not expect any loyalty from a player. If he is a good player and important for the team, it's up to the board/manager to make sure that he is happy here.

Only loyalty that exists is b/w the club and supporters.
Yes, i love a lot of my team players but my love for the club far exceeds my love for the individual players.

My point is though, us it really so different now to how it used to be.

Regarding clubs selling players to cash in, remember Ipswitch and Forest, even l'pool and Arsenal selling their top players; Brazil, Muhren, Wark, Birtles, Woodcock, Davenport, Keegan, Rush, Souness, Stapleton and Brady!?

Was it really al that different back then?

Lambsy

Well, for me, it's always been the same but with players leaving clubs with the amount of money the footballers are making today it's easier to paint them as 'mercenaries who only want a bigger paycheck' even though an upgrade from £100K a week to £150K a week was no different to a player in the 80's going from £1000 per week to £1500 a week.

Except to the perceptions of the subjective fan.

Regarding clubs selling players to cash in, remember Ipswitch and Forest, even l'pool and Arsenal selling their top players; Brazil, Muhren, Wark, Birtles, Woodcock, Davenport, Keegan, Rush, Souness, Stapleton and Brady!?

Was it really al that different back then?

--------------

i think the difference is there are more foreign players in the game nowadays, so there is more scope to find and sign better players than what you already have, plus the added appeal of CL football is a big factor.

On the other foot; Lampard, Terry, Drogba, Essien, Henry, Berkamp, Gerrard, and others; all remained at one club for many years!

And Rooney!

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.

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!

(When I say the glamour of the club I mean since Roman. Going for parties on a billionaires yacht is pretty enticing)

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.

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.

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!?

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.

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!!!

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