Florent Malouda has, during his time with us gtven a fair amount of useful service particularly when teamed up with Drogs! The FSW has over the past few weeks found things hard with with so many players, for various reasons missing from his squad and I wondered how long Malouda was being confined to the naughty step! Is he ever likely to play again-does anyone know?
You never know what's going on behind the scenes but looks another Anelka/Alex case to me. He's not going to go down as our greatest ever player but he's given good service (especially the double year) and deserves better treatment IMO. And no, barring a run of injuries, I expect he'll never play for us again and leave in the summer.
Shame really--because , not only is it a waste of money, but he might have helped to serve up some better results!
What thinking? I see a lot of arse licking, knee jerking, and bandwagon jumping, but no evidence of thinking.
I've been looking for a consensus of opinion about this situation with Malouda, from lots of news reports and forums. It seems both the club and Malouda have both contributed to a stalemate. I gather that Malouda tried to buy himself out of the last year of his contract and Chelsea declined, they wanted to sell him for a fee. Malouda's agent then hawked the player around. Now Malouda's agent is saying that Chelsea want 10 million for Malouda and it is too high as he is 32 and Chelsea paid 13 odd million six years ago. Chelsea say clubs are interested in Malouda but his agent wants a fee and Malouda want wages comparable to what he is getting now, and that is why no one wants him. It seems Malouda would rather stay at Chelsea, seeing out his contract and being paid. So Malouda stays because either Chelsea set too high a fee or the agent wants too much for them in fees and wages, or both, as no club will pay that much. Most Chelsea fans seem to think the Club were stupid in giving him such a well paid four year contract in the first place, allowing the situation to arise. Then again look at where we are with Ashley, JT and Lamps. We want them to stay, but no fan really wants to give JT say a three year contract right now, or Lampard more than two. The board don't. Hence the one year extensions being offered. They don't want another Bogarde/Malouda scenario. My guess is Lampard was offered a one year deal, but at a lower wage, justified as the club would of said he would be starting less, but Lampard said, no I want same wage and bonuses. I think Chelsea want Lampard to stay, but they won't be held to ransom again and for all that Lampard brings he is not the only player in the world of his quality. Indeed most of the others are younger. Lamps is fantastic, unique, but then no one has a crystal ball, you have to play the odds. Last time lamps got injured (a rare event) his form went out the window for three to four months The odds would says next time he gets a bad knock his career is over (in the Prem at least). The directors have a responsibility to the club first and foremost and they have to guess the future just like the rest of us. I hope I'm not coming across as in total support for the board or Roman. I know they have mucked up many times in the past (Sheva and Wilkins but two), but I can see their point of view and understand why they are so inflexible, because the club has been stung by players and agents many times before. What other club would of sacked 1st teamers for recreational drug abuse? Chelsea have twice. Look and how generous they were with Crespo, all because his wife and family could not settle. No one can deny Crespo was a grafter for Chelsea, and that is probably why. Do we feel Malouda is a battler in the same sense for Chelsea?
As far as I understand, Lampard has not been offered anything yet. Indeed I believe the situation to be the other way around with Lampard himself offering to play at a lower salary - it's just the board weren't interested. Same went for the Ballack situation - he offered to play at a 'mere' 40k which is relative peanuts for someone of his experience and stature. Again, the board weren't interested. More fool the board.
Good post with some good points Fact is that no one knows the full Malouda situation but I'm guessing you,re spot on with the highlighted part.
The explanation from df is very interesting! These bleeding agents seem to poke their noses in where they are not required, paticularly where fans are concerned, but I still think our board should have the sense to say that while we're paying get him on the pitch when we need him!
If Malouda want's to sit on his arse and see out his contract then that's up to him. Not his fault he is not getting picked and not his fault he was given such a good contract in the first place. Not really any good for us though, we might as well get him off the books then pay someone who is training with the kids.
Is there much difference between Maloudas ability and the ability of Yossi Benayoun, who despite celebrating the club losing to Arsenal 5-3 last year, is welcomed back and given game time
Probably a big difference in wages! Personally I think Malouda was and probably remains a superior player to Benayoun whose been at Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal yet not made much of an impact at any.
Nothing wrong with him celebrating Arsenal winning last season, they were his club at the time. Just because they're on loan doesn't mean they shouldn't celebrate victorys and care about us
