Indeed. Even our beloved Matty said he would have gone to another club if Saints had been relegated, during his prime. It's all well and good to highlight a lack of loyalty, but if a club takes a dive of several divisions, it's almost inevitable that players will want to leave.
I don't understand why it's seen as such a bad thing for a player to prioritise personal gain over his loyalty to a club. It's only a bloody game, and these people want to earn as good of a living as they can, just like anyone else.
It would honestly be appalling to me if the players are forced to play for a different company and team than the one they signed with. The Rangers club that they signed with no longer exists, and they should be under no obligation to help finance the rebirth. Beyond, there's a massive amount of moral hazard inherent in the idea. Sure, they'll be starting at the bottom, but the idea that they should not only be able to clear all of their debts with the newco scheme, but actively profit from the sale of players bought, is utterly absurd. If I took out 100k in loans and then immediately defaulted, citing the fact that I gave all the money to a family member (who then gave it back), I suspect that the authorities would take a rather dim view of the arrangement.
Why should players show loyalty? Supporters show loyalty to the team, not to the players. Ex players usually get booed, while we cheer our ex opponents after they sign for us. Anyone remember gloating to the blue few when harry and jim moved west? We cared little for his loyalty... for a while. No matter how much I earned, if another company offered me an extra £100,000 per week, I think I'd go. Greedy? Maybe. Opportunist? Certainly. Allowing me to live a certain sort of lifestyle forever? Definitely. Few footballers will go on to have a top career in later life so good luck to them. What amuses me these days is hearing gooners whinging because man city are buying their best players. I didn't hear any sympathy for us when you brought your bigger purse for Theo, Oxo et al. I hate losing our best players and our new financial footing might make it rarer, but I don't expect loyalty. It's good when it happens though.
Because it rewards the efforts of the fans who pay their wages? To keep their families settled? To earn the chance of being a legend rather than a journeyman, effectively getting freedom of a city? To help better local communities and attract attention to the area? Ask Le Tiss. Just because the tedious game of one-upmanship has been bred by this incessant disloyalty in the modern game doesn't mean it's right or good. Normal companies don't have tens of thousands of people cheering them on as their employees sit at their desks. They don't get followed around by a few thousand hardcore pisshead nutters whenever they go on business trips away from home. They don't have season tickets or any particular sort of passion, pride or culture emanating from working men singing their larynxes out in support of them, twirling scarves and waving flags. They don't represent a geographical area, they're just movable franchises for the most part. In short, I really, REALLY can't stand football-business analogies.
It's not footballers fault that fans are idiots. I really, really can't stand people expecting higher standards of footballers than they expect from themselves.
Being out-of-the-ordinary doesn't automatically make you an idiot, contrary to the belief of the more boring sections of society. Football fans expending the huge amounts of time and effort they do into supporting their team should be seen as a kind deed by footballers. People say the environment of modern football isn't conducive to any players showing loyalty, but Lucas Radebe, David Prutton and Andy Hughes all spring to mind as Leeds players over the last decade who've been absolute gentlemen to the people who pay their wages and cheer them on, and are fittingly remembered as such. I can only speak for myself, and I'd expect myself to be loyal within reason if I were a pro footballer. As long as you can comfortably provide for your family, there's no good reason not to reciprocate the loyalty of your supporters.
Remember that fans turn on players as well. For example, Lambert was a big part of us getting promoted, but how long before he gets booed if he had a seriously rubbish season (not likely I know). Players have contracts...we don't own them.
In that case, you have to consider the surrounding circumstances. If they're showing a pattern of not putting the effort in, getting sent off a lot, being soft - i.e. not rewarding the fans' investment, they might well deserve a good booing. There are players who welcome a kick up the arse from fans. If they're still trying their best and large numbers turn on them, fair enough, there's less loyalty for them to reciprocate and you can't blame them moving on if that's their wish. We don't own them, but we, collectively, are more important than they are. Without us, football would be a network of pub teams. The players would be earning normal wages. There'd be little to no glory in it, nor excitement. Whereas without one particular crop of players, well, you just replace them with new ones, don't you? So the importance of the little man shouldn't be dismissed, because as a collective force, we're pivotal to the sport and livelihood of every player involved in it.
