[Archived] Lucas Neill And Professional Contracts

[CrazyIvan]

Since I can't find the original topic and I really don't want to clog up Nicko's thread, I thought I'd post a new one.

Lucas Neill let his contract run down so he could leave. Legally it was fine, but morally? It depends on your viewpoint. As a person who wanted to improve himself (allegedly) and who had given 100% for the club during his time with us, Lucas felt he owed us nothing. I can understand where he comes from with that thought. I can also understand why he wanted the freedom to choose where he wanted to go without the transfer fee complication. The fact he was transferred for a fee is rather a moot point when his intention was to move for nothing. Is that idea of finishing his legal obligation and moving on morally wrong? Not really.

The opposing view is also interesting. We gave Lucas his big chance and maybe made him the player he is now by his being here. Most fans, including myself, thought he should have signed a new contract so that if he did move, we got some decent money out of the deal. To be fair that's a selfish view by us but an understandable one and I think most fans of most clubs would feel the same way. What other reason was there for Lucas Neill to stay? Loyalty? We signed him from Millwall where his career development really began. Did we choose to feel aggrieved then? Should he have stayed out of loyalty top us? Do we look for other opportunities to work elsewhere where we can develop our careers and make more money? Of course we do. What is the difference? It's all about perception. Football in this country used to be a game where loyalty counted and was applauded. Those days are long gone and this game is more about fitting player 'jigsaw puzzles' and tactics together by buying and signing the best fit for your team and the way they play to ensure some level of success. Loyalty is long gone.

The biggest bug-bear for Rovers fans is that he moved to a team that is still about the same level we are at in West Ham. If you take the view that (at that time) West Ham had money to splash and a manager who wanted to get West Ham into the top 4 ish, then his move is reasonable. Who knows what happened with Liverpool.

My view is that Lucas was honourable and morally correct in this day and age. Comparing him to Bentley just shows what I mean. Taking into account history and the ties players used to have with their club and the fans then it's a different story.

Would we have him back? I'm not sure. He was a good player for us and could be again. Would he come back? IMO not on your nelly.

[thenodrog]

I think you are wasting your time with that post Ivan. Tunnel vision appears to be on the increase on here.

btw I wonder if the Millwall fans are still writing about him being a greedy grabbing disloyal type for signing for moneybags BRFC instead of staying on lower wages with them?

[hollowsr]

I haven't really followed the argument but one thing I will say is this:

Many people say he had every right to let his contract run down as he gave his all for us, BUT we did pay him didn't we? It's hardly like he gave us his all for nothing was it?

[CrazyIvan]

I haven't really followed the argument but one thing I will say is this:

Many people say he had every right to let his contract run down as he gave his all for us, BUT we did pay him didn't we? It's hardly like he gave us his all for nothing was it?

Your company pays you for working for them doesn't it? If you got a job elsewhere on more money and left your current employer would you think yourself disloyal? The fact Lucas had a contract that stopped after a period of time makes the situation slightly different in that you look for another job whilst under contract. Lucas was going to look for one after he'd finished his contract with Rovers.

[thenodrog]

Many people say he had every right to let his contract run down as he gave his all for us, BUT we did pay him didn't we? It's hardly like he gave us his all for nothing was it?

Both according to the terms of the contract. What are you trying to say?

[T4E]

Your company pays you for working for them doesn't it? If you got a job elsewhere on more money and left your current employer would you think yourself disloyal? The fact Lucas had a contract that stopped after a period of time makes the situation slightly different in that you look for another job whilst under contract. Lucas was going to look for one after he'd finished his contract with Rovers.

The thing is, Lucas maximised his potential earnings at the expense of Rovers finances - if he had signed a new contract and then moved we would have made more but he would have been unable to command as big a salary. He used the system to his advantage and Rovers disadvantage, obviously some people didn't like that.

Personally I couldn't care less about that. He's just not a very good footballer, and no way would I want him back. We don't have Brad any more to save all the penalties he'd give away.

[thenodrog]

Your company pays you for working for them doesn't it? If you got a job elsewhere on more money and left your current employer would you think yourself disloyal? The fact Lucas had a contract that stopped after a period of time makes the situation slightly different in that you look for another job whilst under contract. Lucas was going to look for one after he'd finished his contract with Rovers.

I guess the usual scam and easy option Ivan is to fake injury (could this possibly be behind RSC's continuing abscence? ) rather than continue being available for selection right to the end of the contract period. Much less messy ...... especially when the captaincy is involved.

However I doubt that some will have the intellect to comprehend.

For the record 70k pw was a fantastic amount of money for a fairly average player, and I would not want him to return on any more than half that figure thats for sure. Neill must have felt like he'd won the lottery when WHU came in with that offer.

[joey_big_nose]

The way I like to think about it is consider if the shoe was on the other foot. If a player gave their all for us but frankly wasn't good enough. Woul dthe fans want him to stay just because he is a "trier"? Nope, if he wasn't good enough then people queue up to kick them out.

They're is no loyalty in football, but it extends to the fans as much as the players. The fans are bound to the club (so are loyal in that respect), and want to see it prosper no matter what, so they are not in favour of providing welfare for a below standard footballer.

So you have to ask, given that mercenary situation that the clubs create in order to succeed, why does any footballer owe anything to a club beyond their contract?

A case in point is Matt Derbyshire. Day by day he tries hard, has some talent, but does not look like he will make it at this level. Rovers supporter, used to work at the club. Would people give a toss if a Championship side offered decent money for him and he left? Maybe if they thought he was a good player who just hadn't hit form yet (some on here think that). But no one would say he should stay just out of "loyalty". it is irrelevent in the context of success which is all people really care about.

I don't see what Lucas did wrong really. He did not lie about anything (well apart from a desire to play at a "higher" level, but that was maybe misplaced ambition) unlike Bellamy. He is just a guy trying to make an (admittedly exhorbitant) living.

[thenodrog]

The way I like to think about it is consider if the shoe was on the other foot. If a player gave their all for us but frankly wasn't good enough. Woul dthe fans want him to stay just because he is a "trier"? Nope, if he wasn't good enough then people queue up to kick them out.

They're is no loyalty in football, but it extends to the fans as much as the players. The fans are bound to the club (so are loyal in that respect), and want to see it prosper no matter what, so they are not in favour of providing welfare for a below standard footballer.

So you have to ask, given that mercenary situation that the clubs create in order to succeed, why does any footballer owe anything to a club beyond their contract?

A case in point is Matt Derbyshire. Day by day he tries hard, has some talent, but does not look like he will make it at this level. Rovers supporter, used to work at the club. Would people give a toss if a Championship side offered decent money for him and he left? Maybe if they thought he was a good player who just hadn't hit form yet (some on here think that). But no one would say he should stay just out of "loyalty". it is irrelevent in the context of success which is all people really care about.

I don't see what Lucas did wrong really. He did not lie about anything (well apart from a desire to play at a "higher" level, but that was maybe misplaced ambition) unlike Bellamy. He is just a guy trying to make an (admittedly exhorbitant) living.

Indeed and many in the 'Neill is a bstard' corner will no doubt talk about getting rid / getting shot of / booting out / cashing in on etc etc the likes of Mokoena, MGP, Bentley, Andrews, Roberts etc as if they were cattle in a cattle market. Doubtless the same types screaming for loyalty that hounded the likes of Sherwood, Wilcox, Carsley et al out of the club. I must admit to doing the same re: Fowler but he was never the option of a sane man was he?

[Mr Creosote]

Throughout most of Lucas Neill's career with Rovers he was a liability. Despite that his coaches saw something in him and the club persevered despite numerous penalties and sendings off. Rovers even stood by him following his appalling assault on Jamie Carragher which left an England international with a broken leg and brought shame on the club.

Finally, after four years of cr@p, we were rewarded with an excellent season from Neill. He topped this with an impressive World Cup (obligatory penalty aside)

On the strength of this he decided that, despite the loyalty shown to him, Rovers were not big enough for Lucas Neill and made those feeling very public. That was our reward. Many of us took exeption to this and made sure he was made aware of our anger. He responded with a petulant, arrogant gesture aimed at those of us who had paid good money to watch him continually drop us in the ****. I am by no means a violent man but I would quite happily put my foot in his smug face at that point.

For those of you who go on about Neill's "honesty" try this -

"I have enjoyed my time at Blackburn and feel that it has been mutually beneficial. However, I feel that I have now reached the zenith of my earning potential and can only maximise it by moving on to another Premier League club or overseas."

Even I would have grudgingly understood and might even I have had a modicum of respect for Neill. Sadly, he just came out with some load of bs about being a life long Liverpool fan.

The guy's an @rsehole. End of.

[RibbleValleyRover]

The whole contract/leaving to West Ham issue is a minor issue for me in regards to Lucas Neill. The main reason i don't want to see him come back is that i don't think he is better than our current options at right back and that from what i've seen of Lucas at West Ham he is a complete liability on the pitch. Giving away stupid fouls repeatedly in dangerous areas appears to be his forte as is hacking another player down for a penalty. When you are fighting against relegation, fighting for every point you possibly can, the last thing you need is those 'qualities' in your side as far as i'm concerned.

I'd rather bring in a younger more stable right back or bring in a right winger and move Bert back there.

[thenodrog]

Throughout most of Lucas Neill's career with Rovers he was a liability. Despite that his coaches saw something in him and the club persevered despite numerous penalties and sendings off. Rovers even stood by him following his appalling assault on Jamie Carragher which left an England international with a broken leg and brought shame on the club.

How can you continually get things so wrong? What rubbish you come out with at times. It wasn't appalling at all. It wasn't even intentional! You were simply listening to Houlliers pathetic gallic squealings. Neill should not even have been sent off. The only contact with Carragher was accidental and was not made by the leading foot but by the foot that was tucked under his body. 2 broken Liverpool legs in that match caused us to be tagged 'dirty blackburn' by the red tops after that and you were daft enough to swallow it. Both broken legs that match were completely unintentional. You really need to check your facts out.

oh.....

END OFF!

*Much the same as Tugay's tackle on Spurs Ghally that cost us a penalty.

[thenodrog]

The whole contract/leaving to West Ham issue is a minor issue for me in regards to Lucas Neill. The main reason i don't want to see him come back is that i don't think he is better than our current options at right back and that from what i've seen of Lucas at West Ham he is a complete liability on the pitch. Giving away stupid fouls repeatedly in dangerous areas appears to be his forte as is hacking another player down for a penalty. When you are fighting against relegation, fighting for every point you possibly can, the last thing you need is those 'qualities' in your side as far as i'm concerned.

I'd rather bring in a younger more stable right back or bring in a right winger and move Bert back there.

I agree.

[Scotty]

Throughout most of Lucas Neill's career with Rovers he was a liability.

You lost what little credibility you had after that first line.

Neill was a decent player for us - certainly better than any of the specialist right-backs we currently have at the club. Do I want him back? Probably not, as I don't think he would be worth the money we'd have to pay for him (fee & wages), but he would certainly improve the current squad.

[Mr Creosote]

How can you continually get things so wrong? What rubbish you come out with at times. It wasn't appalling at all. It wasn't even intentional! You were simply listening to Houlliers pathetic gallic squealings. Neill should not even have been sent off. The only contact with Carragher was accidental and was not made by the leading foot but by the foot that was tucked under his body. 2 broken Liverpool legs in that match caused us to be tagged 'dirty blackburn' by the red tops after that and you were daft enough to swallow it. Both broken legs that match were completely unintentional. You really need to check your facts out.

oh.....

END OFF!

*Much the same as Tugay's tackle on Spurs Ghally that cost us a penalty.

You love lucas dont you?

You lost what little credibility you had after that first line.

Neill was a decent player for us - certainly better than any of the specialist right-backs we currently have at the club. Do I want him back? Probably not, as I don't think he would be worth the money we'd have to pay for him (fee & wages), but he would certainly improve the current squad.

I dont think I'll be taking any lessons in credibility from you!

[American]

The thing is, Lucas maximised his potential earnings at the expense of Rovers finances - if he had signed a new contract and then moved we would have made more but he would have been unable to command as big a salary. He used the system to his advantage and Rovers disadvantage, obviously some people didn't like that.

Personally I couldn't care less about that. He's just not a very good footballer, and no way would I want him back. We don't have Brad any more to save all the penalties he'd give away.

What you miss is that it wasn't his decision. We could have sold him earlier for a higher fee, but Hughes wanted to keep him until he felt the situation was right for him to leave. Getting in Warnock made the timing right, as Lucas had been used as left back most of that season.

[T4E]

Signing a new contract wasn't his decision? Whose decision was it then?

[American]

Staying until only 6 months was left wasn't his decision. He could have been sold earlier for more money.

[T4E]

He was offered a new contract some time before he left. He refused it AND came out saying publicly that he was going to allow his contract to run down and then leave, he would not be signing a new one. He then repeated that many more times until he finally left. There was no chance of us getting a decent fee for him after he'd said that.

[ace]

He was offered a new contract some time before he left. He refused it AND came out saying publicly that he was going to allow his contract to run down and then leave, he would not be signing a new one. He then repeated that many more times until he finally left. There was no chance of us getting a decent fee for him after he'd said that.

Isn't this exactly what he has done at West Ham? Why would anyone pay a fee for him now..when he will be "free" at the end of the season?

[Mr Creosote]

Isn't this exactly what he has done at West Ham? Why would anyone pay a fee for him now..when he will be "free" at the end of the season?

There were rumours that Lucash had demanded a huge pay rise in the midst of West Ham's financial crisis. He has denied this in the media but I would doubt that many would believe a word he says.

[T4E]

Isn't this exactly what he has done at West Ham? Why would anyone pay a fee for him now..when he will be "free" at the end of the season?

Absolutely right - and he'll get a better salary then if a club needed to pay a transfer fee for him. Fair play to him, he did the right thing for Lucas Neill. As I said before, some people didn't like that.

Personally I just think he's a bit ######.

[DeadlyDirk]

I have to say I agree with RVR among others, I don't want him back because he isn't that good, sure he is probably a slightly better player than the options we have now but for the money he would want he isn't worth it and he is prone to giving away penalties, must have seen him give away about 3 this season.

I thought he was on about 50k, but if he really is on 70k then he isn't going to be looking for a paycut, if he was he is going to want 50k at least. How could you justify that for someone of his 'talent'.

It did annoy me when he left that he turned down the chance to play in the champions league with Liverpool to join West Ham. He said it was an upward move, he moved for money pure and simple.

I don't hate him for moving on a free, he said he was going to do as much and at least let us know about it, it wasn't his fault that meant nobody was prepared to pay a fee in January. What other option did he have, lie to us and say he would sign a new contract and then leave on a free instead, that would have been much worse!!

Simple as, not good enough for how much he would want. This is his last big contract at his age, he's going to be wanting a 4 year deal on at least 50k, that's circa 10 million quid!!!!

[OscarRaven]

I do not understand why you are still bothered about this.... I used to care, I don't anymore. Time passes, stuff happens it bothers you less - normally.

Why bring this up two years later? He was mediocre at best he ended up with a 70+ page thread dedicated to his 'leaving' and some of you still are not over it? Shocking, really shocking.

Having trouble coming to terms with the loss of Lucas? Sad? Lonley? - Join other saddo's here

[CrazyIvan]

I do not understand why you are still bothered about this.... I used to care, I don't anymore. Time passes, stuff happens it bothers you less - normally.

Why bring this up two years later? He was mediocre at best he ended up with a 70+ page thread dedicated to his 'leaving' and some of you still are not over it? Shocking, really shocking.

Having trouble coming to terms with the loss of Lucas? Sad? Lonley? - Join other saddo's here

If you'd read the Nicko's thread and the chance he could come back (apparently, according to some newspapers...) you'd understand why.