[Archived] Lucas Neill

[dave birch]

They say that hell has no fury like a woman scorned.

I think that there's now a match for that given some of the comments on here.

Neill is a slightly above average footballer who got a lucky (financial) break. Good luck to him.

If the Whammers go down, he sure as hell won't get the offer of that kind of money again, should he choose to enact the reported realease clause.

[daren]

No one is arguing that Lucas isn't acting in his own best interests. Most of us are pointing out that he's perfectly entitled to do that, and we didn't do badly out of the deal. Seems fair to me.

Now, my own opinion is that he didn't really act in his own best interests career-wise, but he's getting a whopping great paycheck out of it, so there ya go. I hope his Australian franchise dream comes true. Best of luck with that. The Hammers are still going down, though!

[thenodrog]

However I seem to be arguing with people claiming Lucas wasn't acting purely in his own best interests!.

Not me Simon. Neill is simply maximising his income. WHU's desperate 50g pw blew everybody else out of the water!

Where would we be if everyone simply walked out at the end of their contracts? In a right mess.

This is nothing new its exactly where we are and have been for a few years now! Anyway conversely where would we be if they didn't? Cluttered up with crap players thats what. If someone is offered a new contract they either accept it or reject it full stop. If they don't get offered one then we obviously dont want em. Easy really.

Interesting what we're going to do about it in future though. We didn't get a real inkling that Lucas was leaving until this summer (12 months to go on the contract) by which time it was probably already too late to realise his true market value.

Simple. Offer new contract terms sooner!

Rev I did post here this time last year in the Jan 06 transfer thread that Lucas would want to be away in the summer so I guess the board would certainly have known too.

Do we have to insist that players we want to keep always have at least two years left on their contracts in future or they'll be sold? Could get pricey.

Or do we just leave it as it is and risk the odd one walking out?

"Evergreen contracts"? Alternative to that simply do not pay transfer fees and offer certain players really top money but on 1-2 year deals only and preferably performance related. If they are poor / injury prone / bad apples we can get shut easy but if they respond well to the situation they will be eager to re-sign. We've seen too many players on long contracts simply while their time away in a comfort zone.

I've said before loyalty in football stops at the perimeter fence so this situation should suprise no-one.

Edited January 23, 2007 by thenodrog

[RevidgeBlue]

I agree with 99% of what you say there but as a Club we can't afford to simply let players come and go as free agents.

If one of our more highly regarded players leaves occasionally we HAVE to be in a position to cash in. We need the fees more than most.

[jim mk2]

Hughes talked a good game throughout this saga, saying that Neill would only be allowed to leave when it suited Rovers. Even though in reality Neill had the club over a barrel at least it appeared that Rovers had the upper hand in the negotiations.

Well done the club - over-rated player gone and replaced by a younger and better one. And he's left-footed !

[Finch]

By the way, theres only two Lucas Neils !

Wikipedia certainly have their act together when it comes to updating information!

I'm glad he's gone and I'm glad that it's over and done with now because it dragged on for WAYYY to long

(plus I didn't like him all that much, too many pens and free kicks conceded)....

... but it's still going to be wierd seeing him in a West Ham shirt and I must admit that if they get relegated, I won't be shedding any tears.

[thenodrog]

I agree with 99% of what you say there but as a Club we can't afford to simply let players come and go as free agents.

Sorry but as countless clubs have found we have to! 'Big' clubs too suffer just the same, Sol Campbell, Macmanaman, Ballack, RVN etc etc have all done the same it's really not new anymore. Beckham is doing it as we debate. The English club that has adapted to this brave new world of freedom of contract is Notlob and they have exceeded expectations because of it.

Using this Neill instance as an example we have NO option other than to offer to pay a good but not great full back 50k pw and match WHU which we cannot afford and which would upset the salary structure for the other players. To realise any profit in him if we followed that route we would then need to sell him on (not easy at that wage) for a few million (not easy at that age).

I'm suprised so many find it so difficult to grasp the concept. Tell you all what think 'Armed Forces'. People sign on for a fixed term, it costs the nation a fortune to train them and then they leave and take their skills to civvy street for greater reward after that time is up..... with absolutely no questions asked. Whats the difference?

Edited January 23, 2007 by thenodrog

[waggy]

now the saga is over thanks lucas for your time at ewood,breaking liverpool players legs was your forte,hail lucas

[thenodrog]

The carragher break was obviously accidental but were there any more?

Well done the club - over-rated player gone and replaced by a younger and better one. And he's left-footed !

I don't know much about Warnock as I've admitted so whats his right foot like then Jim on a scale of 1-10? It's important nowadays and for a right footer Neills left was pretty good.

Edited January 23, 2007 by thenodrog

[jim mk2]

The carragher break was obviously accidental but were there any more?

I don't know much about Warnock as I've admitted so whats his right foot like then Jim on a scale of 1-10? It's important nowadays and for a right footer Neills left was pretty good.

The point being that a left-footed player provides better balance : Neill could pass with his left foot but he hadn't a clue how to play left back.

[broadsword]

Bloody hell I'm away for a few days and there's an extra 24 pages.

S0d reading that.

How do we all feel about the lack of insider info from Brownie now?

Good luck Lucas. Shame it came down to this, I think in hindsight the club would've liked to have got rid of you earlier.

[broadsword]

oh no, someone moves job for a new challenge

You make it sound like he's off to climb the North face of Mount Eiger.

Going off to play for West Ham is hardly a radically different challenge.

Fair play to him, I don't hold any grudges but I find it hard to believe he's not gone there for the cash, when:

a) He's left for a team worse off than we are, and no guarantee of bettering, only they just had bundles of cash

He turned down Liverpool's offer of £30k/week

c) He's getting £60k/week at West Ham.

Now, I may be doing him a disservice, but the idea that he just went for the dough did pop into my mind.

Anyways, I'm not that fussed. Good luck Lucas and thanks for all the hard work and karate tackles.

[Martin]

Did Lucas Shaft the club??

No he didn't. We made a profit and he never ever said he'd be sticking around. Crucially, he never lied about the situation. The club could plan for what has happened and we've done well (arguably better) out of the whole situation.

Did he run his contract down for his own benefit?

Yes he did. He knew after his excellent world cup he was in demand, therefore he knew he could demand a large salary either now or in the summer. Lucas looked after number one - as we all would do.

In summary

Lucas was a good player (no legend), he gave his all, was rash from time to time and he has not damaged us in any way - so as the gaffer says after 5 good years, we move on.

Final thought

If there would have been no World Cup last summer would Lucas have left?

[CAPT KAYOS]

This is happening all too frequently....... Either I've managed to educate a few on here over the years OR I'm losing my touch!

Or mellowing and conforming to our way of thinking .....finally

[waggy]

with lucas leaving we may move up sorry down the fair play league,6 sendings off and 57 bookings

[yoda]

Yes but we may also end up with a full treatment room when we play whammers

[broadsword]

No worries yoda, just attach some 'roo bars to the players, that should sort it.

[Cocker]

If there would have been no World Cup last summer would Lucas have left?

I thought he wanted to go before the world cup?

[Martin]

I thought he wanted to go before the world cup?

To be honest I can't remmeber when he first openly said he wanted to see out his contract.

My memory of the situation, which might be wildly inaccurate, was.....

He was offered a deal before the world cup, but he said he wanted to concentrate on the tournament. He came back after a excellent campaign with big clubs interested - looked at out offer and thought he could either get more elsewhere both financially and professionally.

So, in my opinion, it was after the World Cup he truly wanted out - it's that Neeskens fault. He inflated Lucas' ego to such a extent he beleived his own hype.

Granted his move to West Ham is most likely not a product of his excellent World Cup, but in a way I think had the world cup not been last summer he'd have a signed a new deal. Hypothetical, I know but it's strange how football works.

[gazsimm]

Thank God Neil has left us now and we can all move on now i think Rovers have done very well with getting 1.5million for him and replacing him with Warnock.

Neil is just after one thing and that is money, to turn down a chance to play champions league football, just proves this and i am glad we have got rid of the greedy money grabber and now have a proper loyal and more commited captain with Robbie Savage

[waggy]

A player of lucas neills talent needs to be playing every week,at liverpool even bellamy cannot get a game every week,so it is a toss up between playing for us or west ham,we offer european football but not much money,west spam offer loads off dosh and a relagation fight,so if footballing reasons rule the roost in the neill household surely he would have stayed at ewood

[gazsimm]

A player of lucas neills talent needs to be playing every week,at liverpool even bellamy cannot get a game every week,so it is a toss up between playing for us or west ham,we offer european football but not much money,west spam offer loads off dosh and a relagation fight,so if footballing reasons rule the roost in the neill household surely he would have stayed at ewood

I think Neil would of signed for Liverpool if they offerd him the same wages as West Ham have, so i don't think a guarantee off 1st team football came into it

[Shaddy]

What surprises me about this whole saga is how quick a lot of Rovers supporters have been to criticise Neill for choosing West Ham over Liverpool, whilst totally missing Liverpool's sheer arrogance in the whole thing.

They wanted to screw MH over the transfer fee... and having tried to pull a fast one that would have given them extra money to entice Neill with wages, offered him what I consider would be a comparatively (to the rest of the Liverpool back line) measly 30k a week.

Anyone care to speculate how much Liverpool would have offered if Lucas had been playing for one of the media darlings?

Furthermore, and although Neill was in a win situation too, I consider it a last act of compassion that he chose the club willing to pay a reasonable transfer. To this end, I equate it much with Souness going to Newcastle when the writing was on the Ewood Park walls that his tenure was coming to an end.

Edited January 23, 2007 by Shaddy

[Jan]

To this end, I equate it much with Souness going to Newcastle when the writing was on the Ewood Park walls that his tenure was coming to an end.

Eh? He moved because Newcastle (Big club mk 2) came in for him. They wouldn't have waited for us to sack him, so I think he went where the money was. There was absolutely nothing compassionate about it, except that coincidentally it 1) stopped him being branded a failure again (a feat which he managed to achieve in spades a mere year later) and 2) stopped us paying to get rid, and potentially being too nice guys and leaving it until we couldn't be rescued.

Edited January 23, 2007 by Jan

[Eddie]

What surprises me about this whole saga is how quick a lot of Rovers supporters have been to criticise Neill for choosing West Ham over Liverpool, whilst totally missing Liverpool's sheer arrogance in the whole thing.

They wanted to screw MH over the transfer fee... and having tried to pull a fast one that would have given them extra money to entice Neill with wages, offered him what I consider would be a comparatively (to the rest of the Liverpool back line) measly 30k a week.

Anyone care to speculate how much Liverpool would have offered if Lucas had been playing for one of the media darlings?

Furthermore, and although Neill was in a win situation too, I consider it a last act of compassion that he chose the club willing to pay a reasonable transfer. To this end, I equate it much with Souness going to Newcastle when the writing was on the Ewood Park walls that his tenure was coming to an end.

He went to West Ham because they could, he wasn't thinking about us at all in doing so. If he had cared enough about us to change his career for us then he would have stayed, simple as. Liverpool offering him 30k a week seems to be totally in line with how much they pay their players (not far off what they pay Bellamy and who is the bigger, younger and better player out of the two?). I don't blame Neill for doing what he has done, but don't try and not see it how it is.