I dont 'care' that you are calling him a twat, stupid (or that you are weirdly making fun of him having his father murdered or growing up in poverty and then not adapting well enough to be a role model). I'm just pointing out the floors in the comments. You still haven't explained: -Why does a Jamaican who grew up in London owe the same amount of loyalty to Liverpool as a born and bred Scouser who came within a whisker of leaving and never achieved what he should have as a result? -If Rangers put the same amount of coaching and effort into Raheem but he turned out to be not good enough would they have shown him loyalty for choosing them and paid him a contract for the next 20 odd years? Or If after Liverpool bought him he didnt turn out to be as good as they hoped and not good enough to be a professional footballer then would they also have given him a 15-20 odd year contract? If the answer to those questions is obviously no then why does he owe Liverpool or QPR loyalty? Why then is the total of £40m received by Liverpool and £10m received by Rangers isn't enough compensation for him moving on and ending his loyalty?
I know my posts have many levels but to say you are pointing out flaws in my comments is above me, or is it below? TBH i am just stuck between the two. Please don't give us the sob story because $tirling had it hard growing up because there are many other footballers that have had hard lives as well and still show loyalty. Why are you also diverting away from the fact that he is a greedy little twat and comparing him to Stevie G's loyalty? Sorry, the mobster Don Gerrard. You are now trying to turn this into a debate about Stevie G because you know that the majority of people think like me, that $tirling is a greedy little twat but you just want to take some high ground as if you are the voice of right and wrong and you are not. Your last post was full of 'what if's' and not what 'is'. The fact 'is', as many have said, that he is a greedy little twat. Sorry PD but you are talking a load of old tosh.
Well you brought up Gerarrd as what all footballers should aim at. I just pointed out why that was wrong I wasn't simply raising 'what if's' I was trying to get you to explain whether the club's needed to show the same amount of loyalty or whether it's one way and only when that player is really good... unsurprisingly you haven't been able to answer that I also asked direct questions like why isn't the 40m received by Liverpool and 10m received by Rangers not enough compensation for ending this loyalty? But if your going to stick to the lazy populist lines like 'he's a greedy twat' without basing this on anything more than jealousy that he earned a lot more money than you doing a fun job and but he still wanted to move on to an even better job and get paid even more money then fine
Lets just agree to disagree on this. As i have said i am happy with the £9M and TBH if we had kept him he probably wouldn't be joining Man City. I think the player has shown what he is really like. As for Stevie G, whatever you claim he is/was, he will go down in Liverpool's history as a player that stayed loyal to the club. He will have banners with his face/name on in the Kop for years, Do we think $tirling will at whatever club he jumps to next? Only time will tell but i think the majority will say no. As for using lazy populist lines? I cannot recall many papers calling him "A greedy little twat". That was a line from me. So i guess rather than keep going on about this i will say he is a greedy little twat and you can support his actions.
You must hate Delph now!!!!!!!!! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-performs-u-turn-on-Manchester-City-move.html Dont be a hypocrite .... Cue rant...
Not really, don't know the guy!! Haha, a footballer returning to type. Thought it was too good to be true. Shame though, will be going to a few Villa Park games next season hopefully.
