Most transfers run
smoothly but some become lengthy, bitter, sagas. I have a look at three of the
longest running sagas of this year's window.
The
transfer window is well and truly open and will remain so for another three
weeks. Plenty of Premier League clubs have already been active in some way or
another, buying, selling, in some cases even exchanging players in order to
sharpen their squads in preparation for the upcoming campaign. So far, the
money spent this summer hasn’t been eye-watering. Although some clubs have
looked to get their business done early, Arsenal for example, many have found
themselves in the position (especially with the Euros and Olympics) of having
to be a little more patient in their pursuit of new talent. We can expect,
therefore, to see much more toing and froing in the coming weeks as deadline
day approaches and the pressure to close deals grows ever greater.
The
majority of transfers run smoothly enough. An enquiry of availability is made,
a bid is put in, negotiations take place, a fee is agreed and, once personal
terms have been agreed and a medical
completed, the player signs on the dotted line and moves on. There are
however, more and more so it seems these days, inevitably transfers that
become, in modern journalistic parlance, “sagas”. These tend to occur when a
club is desperate to sign a player, the player is keen to move to said club,
however, his current employers either wish to hold onto him or to ensure that
top whack is paid in recompense.
There
are generally three options of how a situation like this can pan out. The first
option is for the selling club to eventually agree a deal with the prospective
buyer and to reluctantly let the player move on. The second option is for the
player to accept that he is contracted to his current club and recognise that
they are under no obligation to sell, remain professional and see out his
contract. The third is for the player to demand a move and try his best to
force that move, come what may.
For
players who choose the third route and become “contract rebels” it can be a
dangerous road to travel. A ruthless chairman may call their bluff and refuse
to sell and, unless they can re-ingratiate themselves with the manager and the
rest of the squad they could easily find themselves rotting in the reserves.
However, it isn’t a wise business move to let a player on high wages play a
bit-part role simply in order to block a move or as some chairmen like to make
out, on a matter of principle. Simply put, it’s a waste of an asset. The
preferred logic in football is that when a player wants out, you’d better let
him go.
This
summer has seen its fair share or protracted transfer “sagas”. However, there
are three that have dominated the headlines for large parts of the closed
season and remain rumbling on. The three players involved have made clear their
intentions to seek employment elsewhere whilst there current clubs do not wish
to let them go for anything less than a premium fee. In this piece I’ll examine
the three cases and give my opinion on how the “contract rebels” and their
clubs can best resolve the respective situations.
Robin
van Persie was without doubt the Premier League’s best player last season. The
Dutchman was in lethal form as he pulled Arsenal kicking and screaming up the
league table after enduring their worst ever start to a Premier League
campaign. Van Persie notched up thirty league goals over the course of the
2011/12 season, helping Arsenal to a third place finish, beating their fiercest
rivals Tottenham Hotspur down into fourth.
It
is safe to say that, without van Persie, the Gunners would have been in
terrible trouble last year, probably falling well short of making the
Champions’ League spot, however, much of the talk surrounding the Arsenal camp,
especially after Christmas, centred not around his goal return but on whether
or not the “star” player would be signing a new contract with the club.
After
crashing out of the Group Stages at Euro 2012, following a wretched showing by
his native Holland, van Persie announce in a statement that he would not be
signing a new contract with the London club, stating a lack of faith in the
club’s policy for the future and expressing his desire to leave the Emirates.
Many
Arsenal fans were up in arms about the manner of the statement and the fact
that it seemed to be issued from behind closed doors, many others are simply
disgusted that their talisman and captain has expressed a desire to quit the
club publicly, both quite understandable reactions. However, it seems to me
that van Persie’s desire is to move on is for legitimate reasons and, however
hard of a pill it may be to swallow initially, Arsenal should let him go.
Van
Persie is 29 years old, is entering the last year of his contract and has been
at the club since 2004; he’s served his time. Many Arsenal fans complain that
the club carried him and paid his wages whilst he was out of the game through a
series of injuries. This is true, however, players can get injured, it’s an
occupational hazard which clubs have to accept. That said, van Persie has still
scored 132 goals in his career as a Gunner, making him Arsenal’s eighth highest
scorer of all time; a notable contribution.
There
are a host of clubs interested in the wantaway Arsenal frontman. Italian
champions Juventus have been heavily linked with the Dutchman all summer,
whilst in the Premier League the chase for his signature is being led by the
two Manchester clubs. Arsene Wenger is continuing to make noises about trying
to keep last season’s top scorer at the Emirates but, with van Persie’s stated
desire to leave, I don’t see any way that the two parties can be reconciled.
The player has already refused to take part in the club’s pre-season tour and
his mind seems to be firmly made up.
Arsenal’s
form in the early part of the 11/12 campaign was heavily affected by the late
departure of Samir Nasri to Manchester City, after the London club failed in
their effort to persuade the Frenchman to stay. The last thing they need is for
something similar to happen with van Persie. The Gunners are much better
prepared for any loss this time around, having signed Giroud, Podolski and
Cazorla to play up front. Although none of these three are the lethal finisher
that van Persie is, between them they certainly have goals so losing last season’s
star should not be such a big blow. Liverpool lost Michael Owen for as little
as £8m and went on to win the Champions’ League the following year, so losing
your star striker doesn’t necessarily end in catastrophe.
The
board at the Emirates are looking to maximise the transfer fee for van Persie,
a fee of over£20m is being sought, but this is only likely to be met by one of
the Gunners’ closest rivals. However, having signed him for less than £3m from
Feyenoord, it would make more sense for the club to drop their fee and
encourage Juventus to make a firm bid. Selling to Manchester United would be
folly as they finished just one place ahead of the side from North London last
term and selling to City, well it would just feed the perception that Arsenal
have become a feeder club for the “super-rich new elite”.
United
seem to be the favourites to snap van Persie up, with a medical reportedly due to take place
over the weekend. However, if I was Wenger, I would do my utmost to make sure
that this doesn’t happen, for obvious reasons.
For the player himself, as mentioned above, he has angered many with his
actions and words so far, however, should he go abroad to pursue trophies, he
will quickly be forgiven by the Arsenal faithful. If on the other hand he chooses
to ply his trade in Manchester, either for City or United, his legacy will be
very different. He will forever be remembered as a turncoat, a Judas, somebody
who thumbed his nose at the club after receiving nothing but support throughout
his Arsenal career. After giving so much of his footballing life to one club,
that would be a crying shame.
Across
the North London divide now, to White Hart Lane and a certain Luka Modric. The
Croat, signed by Juande Ramos in 2008, quickly established himself as a classy
playmaker and, over the course of the last four seasons has become an integral
part in a Spurs side that was very unlucky not to qualify for the Champions’
League for the second time in three years.
After
missing out on Champions’ League football with Tottenham last year, Modric was
heavily linked with a move to, London rivals, Chelsea in the summer of 2011.
Daniel Levy, Spurs chairman, refused to accept Chelsea’s offers for the Croat
as he was a vital cog in, then manager, Harry Redknapp’s system
Modric
was fairly non-plussed by the hierarchy’s intransigence and behaved a little
like a spoilt child by all accounts. However as deadline day approached and
with a move definitely off the cards, the Croat, with the help of Harry
Redknapp’s arm round the shoulder style of man management, reconciled himself
to another season at White Hart lane. He went on to perform superbly in the
Premier League for Spurs and helped guide them to fourth place (narrowly
missing out on third). However thanks to Chelsea’s thoroughly unexpected and,
some would say, undeserved victory in the Champions’ League, Tottenham cruelly
missed out on a place at Europe’s top table for a second year running.
That
result in Munich, amongst other things, cost Redknapp his job and left a number
of issues unresolved at White Hart Lane. Not least the future of Luka Modric.
Having dedicated himself to the cause last year and faced disappointment again,
Modric is ready to move on, this time amidst heavy interest from Real Madrid.
Levy has again rebuffed the advances of the Spanish giants, who are believed to
have tabled an offer of £25m for the player. Whilst this might have been a good
move by Levy last season, it may not prove to be so wise this time around.
Modric
is almost 28 and now has just two seasons left on his “whopping” six year
contract. He is undoubtedly a class act and has been great for Spurs, however,
after refusing to travel on the club’s tour of North America and now being
forced to train on his own, he has made it clear that he sees his future away
from White Hart Lane.
The
Croat, who starred at Euro 2012 as his national side were very unfortunate to
be knocked out in the group stage, will never be worth more than he is now and,
although Levy values him at closer to £40m, unless he’s going to PSG, no club
will pay that. Modric is fantastic but not irreplaceable. There are question
marks over whether he will thrive under the “cold fish” style of man management
preferred by new boss Andre Villas Boas and, unless Levy wants to risk making a
loss on his star man or worse, see him go for nothing in two seasons, now is
the time to sell.
Modric
has given Tottenham a lot in his time there; however, being from Croatia and
having spent four years in London already, I think it’s fair to say that he
should be allowed to move on. This, like van Persie, is likely to be the last
big move in his career and to want to have a chance of winning titles by
joining Mourinho at Real is perfectly understandable. An accommodation should
be reached; the deal would be beneficial for all.
Spurs
would make £10m on a player who is at his peak market value, whilst selling to
a club they will rarely face. Modric would be happy as would Real. The £25m
plus could then be spent on a player like Moutinho, somebody who can do a
similar job and is more the type of player that AVB is used to. As far as Levy
and Spurs are concerned, I would say this: it’s one thing sticking to your principles;
it’s another cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Staying
in the capital (it seems to be the preferred home of contract rebels), but
moving West, to Craven Cottage, home of Fulham. Clint Dempsey has been linked
with a move to Liverpool for the duration of the transfer window to date. It
had been thought that a deal had been struck for the U.S.A. forward, however,
Fulham’s refusal to budge on their £10m asking price has become more than a
little stumbling block.
Dempsey
is 29 years old and joined the Cottagers in January 2007 for a fee of roughly
£2m from MLS side New England Revolution. He has since become a firm favourite
at the Cottage and one of their most consistent performers. Dempsey can operate
as an attacking midfielder or across the front line and has notched up an
impressive 50 league goals in 184 appearances for Fulham.
Last
season was Dempsey’s most prolific, scoring 23 in all competitions (17 in the
Premier League) and, as such, he came to the attention of several top clubs
including Arsenal and Liverpool. Dempsey has since stated his desire to leave
Fulham and move to the North West in order to join Liverpool. With less than
eighteen months left on his current deal, the U.S.A. star has refused to sign
an extension and has signalled his intent to force through a move.
With
the club due to fly to Switzerland for a pre-season tour a fortnight ago,
Dempsey asked manager Martin Jol to be excluded and instead asked to remain in
London and train with the youth squad. Needless to say this caused a heated
debate and, although Dempsey was left behind, upon the first team squad’s
return, he has been made to train alone.
Once
again this seems like an untenable situation and an unfair position for Fulham
to take surrounding the transfer. Dempsey has given five and a half years to
Fulham, he is 29 and will never get another chance like this in his career.
Once again, he is not from London and therefore has displayed enough loyalty to
the club and fans in his time at Craven Cottage, what he’s asking for is not
unreasonable.
£10m
is too much to hope to receive for a player who has two, possibly three good
seasons left, so it seems a compromise must be reached. There has been talk of
Charlie Adam moving in a cash plus player deal, rumours which have gained more
credence in recent days. Whatever happens, Fulham would be well advised to
sell, and they’ll never get more for Dempsey and risk losing him for nothing if
they stubbornly refuse to budge.
By Neil Patterson
Email: neil.b.patterson@gmail.com
Facebook: http://goo.gl/MJce0
Twitter: http://twitter.com/Neil1980
