Loyalty

You are saying that we are praising Giggs, Scholes etc. too much for being loyal, and then arguing they're now more loyal than a player like Le Tissier. What the **** do you mean? So just because certain players don't get recognition (due to the way our media works) we should discredit other players? Idiotic.

Yeah, I do think that Le Tissier deserves more praise from the media because of the type of loyalty he showed. Maybe Giggs is more loyal than Le Tissier and would have followed ManU into League 1 but we don't know that. But the media goes on and on and on about the loyalty and professionalism of a select few players, and people totally buy it. People think that Giggs and co. are by far the most loyal players in the universe...I'm just pointing out that maybe it's not necessarily true and that there are a lot of other players out there equally as loyal. Also, their loyalty isn't really shocking considering the club they're at. I would be that loyal too if I were in their shoes. Beckham is the perfect example. He gets so much praise from the media for being professional, and people think he's an all-time great just for that, but how many other players are in the game are equally as professional? More importantly, don't we expect that kind of professionalism from the players?

So you're not in a normal profession because you've succeeded? Right.. People like Paris Hilton living off their parent's success, that is not a normal profession.

Yeah, Paris Hilton doesn't have a normal profession, nor do any celebrities for that matter. If you think that football players have a normal profession, than you have a messed up idea of the word 'normal.' You're way off point anyway. The point I was making is that football is not a normal profession. If I leave one company for a rival company that pays me more, that's not really considered disloyal. Now if Rooney left for Man City, that would be extremely disloyal to all of his fans and to his club. But you would be OK with that, right? Football is just a business, right? Nothing better should be expected of him, right?

Athletes are trying to win, do you really think the men at the top of business empires and in high flying jobs need more money? No, they do not. They're there to win, they're competitive, just because athletes desire trophies, and they desire profit, both have an insatiable appetite to win.

No, they're at the top because usually they're driven egomaniacs who want to earn more money. You don't think they care about profits? Business isn't about winning, it's about profit. Sports and business are two different things, and it's ridiculous to compare the two and only treat the athletes as employees and the fans as consumers. I expect more from a football player than from a normal employee. A normal employee doesn't have a club he is playing for or millions of fans.

Numerous businesses invest in bright employee's, either coming out of university, and some will even pay for tuition fees to see you through, so yes they do invest in employee's in the same way. And differentiating between fans and other businesses, fans are just an extreme case of brand loyalty with emotional investment.

Probably the worst dribble I've ever seen on the forum. Thinking like an economist again, aren't we? You seriously think there is no difference between a club and a business? That fans are only "emotionally invested consumers"? Good god, you have a really depressing view of sports. I won't even bother responding to it because it's such a ridiculous statement. All I'll ask you is this: I guess the only thing that matters to you is ManU's balance sheet? That you would trade winning titles for profits? Because that's how businesses operate. McDonald's doesn't give a **** if it wins taste-test contests, it's simply trying to make a profit. That's what businesses do. A club does not try to make a profit. It tries to break even, to balance its finance for the stability of the club (although some don't care). But its ultimate goal is to win trophies. If ManU continually sold all of its best players and never won trophies all for the profits of the owners, that would be a good business policy. I guess you would support that? Obviously there is a business side to the game, but if you think it's only a business and that there is no difference whatsoever between a football club and a normal corporation like the Gap, there's something seriously wrong with you.

As for businesses paying for the education of its employees, how frequent is this? Every once in a blue moon they might pay for someone's college education, or obviously their master's degree if they can benefit from the employee getting that training. Although I've never met anyone who did that, do you honestly think that's the same as bringing a 10 year old kid through the youth team and into the first team? You see no difference? And if even the employer helped out the employee that much, you don't think the employee owes the business any loyalty at all? You can't compare a youth system to a normal business. Normal businesses don't pay for the education of dozens of 10-18 year olds, one or two of whom might have a chance to work for the business. Giggs has been at ManU since he was what, 14? You don't think he owes the club and the fans any more loyalty than a normal employee at some business? You have very low expectations for your club and its players. Guys like Adebayor wouldn't bother you, since they're just typical economic actors? If your club was like City and nothing but mercenaries, that would be OK, wouldn't it, since it's just a business?

You've completely derailed from questioning players we see as loyal, and if they are in fact so loyal. Now you're just ranting about non-loyal players, which isn't the point of the debate.

Are you ******* serious??? Have you read anything I've written??? The OP perhaps??? I'll spell it out for you in simple terms.

Part 1: Giggs, Xavi, etc. aren't the only players in football who should be praised for being loyal. There are a number of reasons for having to switch clubs: mabe the club sells you because it needs to funds, maybe you want to play in a competitive league, etc. So just because you're not a one club man doesn't mean you don't deserve the credit that the one club men do. Also, that means that just because you're a one club man doesn't mean you're necessarily this amazingly loyal player. For all of the players we've listed, Zanetti, Puyol, etc. it was always in their best interest to stay at their clubs, which are the biggest in the world. Someone who makes a sacrifice, however, to stay and play at their clubs is what shows true loyalty. This would be someone like Le Tissier or John Stockton. It was a lot more common back in the day, but not anymore. But fans simply accept it.

Part 2: loyalty and professionalism, to a certain extent, should be EXPECTED of the players. Guti, for example, was at Real Madrid at age 9. He was completely formed by the club. They trained him and made him into the player that he is today. The fans supported him like crazy. You guys seriously don't think he owes Real Madrid anything? That it would be totally acceptable for him to leave for say, Barcelona, for more money? Since he's simply an employee moving to another firm? As far as professionalism goes, these guys are paid millions and are supported by millions of fans. You don't think they have any obligation to be professional? You don't think that for all that money and support he has given, Guti has any obligation to give it his all and not party every night? You don't think that Craig Bellamy has any obligation whatsoever to behave himself since there are young kids that watch the sport and look up to him?

It seems you have really low expectations of a players' responsibilities. I don't get it, we pay them millions, make them into the players they are today (and if it wasn't for that training, they wouldn't be able to succeed at all), give them fanatical support, and you don't think they have any obligations whatsoever? I don't criticize my manager or my employees. I am professional in the workplace. But I don't deserve to be praised for this. It's expected of me. Now players are not your ordinary employees, they make millions and have the undying support from their fans. You don't expect them to conduct themselves well on and off the football field? You think they should be praised for doing what normal people don't have a problem doing? When Tevez was acting unprofessional at ManU, you weren't bothered by it? You didn't think he had an obligation to be professional since he was paid millions (money that came from the fans) and he had the undying support of the fans and the tradition of other ManU legends to follow?

"Ranting about non-loyal players" was half of my argument. I'm complaining about the utter lack of loyalty in football, and the fact that players like Xavi and Zanetti, who behave as players SHOULD behave, get tons of praise, shows how messed up the climate is. Their attitude and professionalism should be EXPECTED of players who were formed at their clubs and supported by millions of fans. Anyone who isn't like that, such as Adebayor or El Hadji Diouff or whoever, is in the wrong. They aren't normal and their behavior isn't acceptable. It's disgraceful. Players like Maldini, who are loyal and professional, should be the norm. I can't believe you don't agree with me on this.




All of you made very good arguments until this last post, which was utter ****. But Mike and Sunil 'liked' it, which clearly demonstrates that you're not even considering my arguments. You've just decided on an emotional level that I'm wrong and will agree with anyone who disagrees. Since you disagree with me on every point I'm guessing, I'll lay out what you must believe, and then you can tell me with what you disagree with, OK? It would save us all a lot of time.

Part 1:
1. Giggs and Xavi are more loyal than all other players because they are one club men. Scholes, for example, is more loyal to ManU than Beckham because he never left ManU.
2. Giggs and Xavi made a lot of sacrifices to stay at their clubs (maybe you think that earning only 6 million instead of 7 million is a huge sacrifice? or that they wouldn't win many trophies with their clubs)?
3. It wouldn't be extremely desirable to stay at their clubs for all of their careers. So playing your entire career at ManU or Barca and constantly collecting trophies wouldn't be awesome. It would be better to leave for a smaller club? To a different country where you're not admired and where you'll be discarded eventually, and you might not be welcome back at your old club? To be an icon of a huge club?
4. There is no difference whatsoever between Le Tissier's loyalty and Zanetti's loyalty. Although Zanetti left Talleres and Banfield for Inter, as big as any club in the world, it's just the same to be loyal to Inter than it is to bag tons of goals for Southampton and turn down offers from much bigger teams. Le Tissier has shown no more proof that he is loyal than Zanetti has (not whether or not one is more loyal than the other, I'm talking about proof of loyalty). We should talk about Zanetti more in the media for his loyalty than Le Tissier's. Even though there are other players who are professional and loyal (or maybe you think there aren't?), we should only pick a few favorites and praise them incessantly. Gary Neville is a perfect example. He just retired, and we should treat him as if he's one of the only loyal, professional players in the game...that he is the most loyal, professional player of our era (aside from Giggs and Scholes). I guess loyalty and professionalism are easy to measure.

Part 2:
1. Loyalty should not be expected of players. Even though they were formed by the club from a young age onwards with the youth system, the club making a huge investment in them along the way that had a low chance of paying off, even though the fans support them undyingly, even though they are paid millions, they should not be expected to be loyal to their clubs and fans. If they are, it's a huge bonus, and they should be praised incessantly by the media for it.
2. Professionalism should not be expected of players. Even though they are paid millions, are celebrities, have the image of the club at stake, and have thousands of young adoring fans who want to be them and imitate them, they have no obligation whatsoever to act professionally. If they are professional, meaning they always do what they're asked and work hard, maintain clean and dignified conduct, and don't criticize their manager and fellow players, it's a huge bonus and they should be praised incessantly by the media for it. Oh, and Beckham is by far the most professional player in the world, just like the media says.
 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise

- You complain your arguments don't get read when you write in such density?

You've twisted my words numerous times. I was showing how Mike's football-business comparison works. I don't see where I said they don't care about profit either, I do believe I said profit is their motivation to succeed?

Again, you're ranting about non-loyal players, I'm not disagreeing with you on that point, I was arguing with you because you were insulting player's loyalty. Also, I can't be bothered replying to the rest of the dribble you write, takes far too long to read to get to a substantial point. Most of the things I just wrote are in reply to what you wrote, but then you call what I wrote a depressing view on sports. Stop taking everything so seriously, I honestly think you just twist everything I say to get a reply out of me.

Oh, and look at that, I can cover in a few sentences what takes you a page to write.

EDIT: Also, you're horribly deluded. You expect your club and players to behave in a certain way. Well the world has changed, capitalism has taken over football, get out of the 70's and into the real world. We can reminisce all we like, but I choose to keep myself planted in the present. To your comment about balance sheets over trophies, of course I prefer trophies, but I also recognise that the trophies are mostly a direct result from the balance sheet. In today's age, a club can go on without trophies (however painful it may be), they can't go on for long if they're consistently in a poor financial state.
 
Last edited:
Maybe these players were just less ambitious? They clearly weren't fussed about winning anything so why should they be praised? I'd say players that are ambitious AND loyal (like those mentioned, Scholes, Giggs, Xavi, Puyol, Zanetti etc) deserve much more credit than the ones mentioned above. They are clearly better players, were playing for the teams that they loved AND winning trophies. So clearly you can be loyal and successful.

Anyway end of argument from me. This is tiresome now.

Good lord, what a woefully terrible argument. Every one of the players I listed was a Hall of Famer. Dan Marino is considered by most to be the best quarterback of all time, for example, as are many of the others I listed. You seriously don't think those guys were ambitious? That they didn't care about winning? Do you have any idea how devastated Malone and Stockton were to lose twice in a row to Jordan and the Bulls were in the finals? They wanted just as bad as anyone to win titles. Every one I listed was extremely hard-working and professional, especially someone like John Stockton. The difference is that they put their teams and their fans above their own desires for titles, so they stuck around on teams that weren't as good. They almost won their teams titles in some cases, (ie Stockton and Malone getting really close, Ewing got so close, etc.). They would rather win titles with their teams than sell out to some team that would give them more titles. THAT'S sacrifice.

It's something that Le Tissier did, definitely something that Steven Gerrard does. As for Puyol or Neville, they never had to make that sacrifice, and we don't know for certain if they would have or not. So yeah, as of right now, there is more proof that Gerrard is loyal than Neville is. Gerrard clearly sacrificed a ton of money and titles for his club. Does that mean he's more loyal than Neville? No. But there is more proof of his loyalty. But I bet when Gerrard retires, he won't get the same fanfare for being loyal that Giggs or Neville will get.
 
Scholes,Giggs, Neville, Le Tissier, Maldini and dare I say Gerrard are all loyal players.
The Question I have is They all supported the clubs they were/are with- so do you think that would have helped the loyalty.?
I know there is a lot of players who have left the clubs they supported (Carroll being a good example lateley) but who you support must have a reason in your decision.
 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise

- You complain your arguments don't get read when you write in such density?

You've twisted my words numerous times. I was showing how Mike's football-business comparison works. I don't see where I said they don't care about profit either, I do believe I said profit is their motivation to succeed?

Again, you're ranting about non-loyal players, I'm not disagreeing with you on that point, I was arguing with you because you were insulting player's loyalty. Also, I can't be bothered replying to the rest of the dribble you write, takes far too long to read to get to a substantial point. Most of the things I just wrote are in reply to what you wrote, but then you call what I wrote a depressing view on sports. Stop taking everything so seriously, I honestly think you just twist everything I say to get a reply out of me.

Oh, and look at that, I can cover in a few sentences what takes you a page to write.

EDIT: Also, you're horribly deluded. You expect your club and players to behave in a certain way. Well the world has changed, capitalism has taken over football, get out of the 70's and into the real world. We can reminisce all we like, but I choose to keep myself planted in the present. To your comment about balance sheets over trophies, of course I prefer trophies, but I also recognise that the trophies are mostly a direct result from the balance sheet. In today's age, a club can go on without trophies (however painful it may be), they can't go on for long if they're consistently in a poor financial state.

I didn't twist anything of what you said, I merely carried out the implications in your arguments' response to mine.

As for the business metaphors, even if we do use them, it proves my argument. If a business put faith in me, trained me from age 13 onwards (even though the chances of me actually working for the business were very slim), then hired me and made me the employee that I was today, paying me tons of money, you don't think I wouldn't be obligated to show them loyalty? That it would be OK for me to jump ship to a rival for a higher salary, when I was already making millions? You don't think I should be expected to be professional? That someone earning millions should be praised for being professional?

Other than disagree with a few minor points that didn't have to do with my general argument, you didn't really disagree with anything I had to say. You agreed with me about the lack of professionalism and that it should be expected. Though you don't want to make the move, I think you agree that loyalty should be expected from the players as well. I'm not sure or not if you think one-club men such as Puyol and Guti (until he was sold) deserve more praise for their loyalty than say Henry or Beckham, or whether or not Le Tissier deserves more respect than Xavi. But I definitely think my arguments are pretty reasonable there.

What you did say was that I "insulted" the loyalty of these players. This to me proves my initial point about you guys...clearly your disagreements stem from an emotional reaction. You got the sense I was "insulting" your favorite players, which I wasn't, and on a subconscious level I'm sure the fact that the OP used all ManU players had something to do with it (after all, everyone here that disagreed with me was a ManU fan). I'm making a pretty obvious point: that these guys are no more loyal than a lot of other players out there who get no praise, they had it great at their clubs (millions would kill to be in their positions and would be that loyal, and this is how the game was before money ruined it) and there really was little reason for them to leave (other than a few extra dollars, which as I've already argued, would reflect poorly on them), and that they didn't make any real sacrifices to be one club men. Gerrard did. Le Tissier did. So I'm going to praise those two for their loyalty before I praise Xavi. I don't see how this is unreasonable and why everyone argued so vehemently against it other than the fact that you got an emotional reaction to it.
 
Ledley King has got to be up there surely or is it Tottenham is loyal to King with all his injuries??
 
Last edited:
Scholes,Giggs, Neville, Le Tissier, Maldini and dare I say Gerrard are all loyal players.
The Question I have is They all supported the clubs they were/are with- so do you think that would have helped the loyalty.?
I know there is a lot of players who have left the clubs they supported (Carroll being a good example lateley) but who you support must have a reason in your decision.

It's an interesting question. I'm sure the fact that they were at their boyhood clubs had a lot to do with the fact that they were loyal to them, and good for them. I do think that it's preferable to the fans to have the loyal player in question to be a childhood fan of the team. But it doesn't have to be like that. I don't think Veron was an Estudiantes fan growing up, but he showed loyalty to Estudiantes because of what the club did for him. That's good too. But it should be EXPECTED, which is the argument I'm making.

As far as Carroll goes and the ones that left the clubs they supported, it depends on the place. I think jumping to a higher league is very understandable, since that makes you a better player. Of course if you stay in that lower league even though you're too good for it, that's very commendable (and does a better job of proving loyalty than, say, Xavi at Barca), especially if that lower league doesn't include Champions League football (ie South America, where there are no uber prestigious tournaments you can compete in). As for moving to a different club within the league, in Carroll's case I guess it's understandable. He wants to win trophies, and he'll have a much better chance Liverpool. But if he did decided to stay with Newcastle and wait for them to build a team around him, or even if they didn't, just stay there out of loyalty to the club, that will be TRULY loyal. That's the kind of loyalty of Le Tissier, who has done more to prove loyalty (not prove that he's more loyal) than Neville, for example. Though we're going to hear much more about Neville's loyalty than Le Tissier's.

As for Gerrard, he's a tricky case. True, he won less trophies with Liverpool, but he did get plenty and was at a big 4 club playing CL football every year. He could have gone to Chelsea for more money and titles, but he didn't. IMO, that's doing more to prove your loyalty than Neville did, for example (unless ManU crashed, of course, and he stayed on the team through bad years, when he was clearly too good for the team). But, since Liverpool is a huge club and going from Liverpool to Chelsea would have been viewed as treacherous, I think that Gerrard's loyalty should have been expected. So we shouldn't praise him too much for it.

Le Tissier, though, went above and beyond the expectations for loyalty. So he is the prototypical loyal player, not Zanetti! But we will hear much more about Neville's loyalty than Le Tissier's, I'm sure. Was Neville a better player? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know if there was that much separating them. Neville was on an amazingly well-run team surrounded by superstars. Le Tissier showed his class on a much worse team. The point is, even if they are similar in terms of ability and Le Tissier did more to prove his loyalty than Neville (again, not saying he's more loyal), we will hear much more about Neville's loyalty. Which I think is BS, and I can't believe no one agrees with me.
 
Steve Harper, now he's loyal :)
 
Last edited:
Ledley King has got to be up there surely or is it Tottenham is loyal to King with all his injuries??

It's tough to say because he never fulfilled his potential. You're the Tottenham fan so you would know more than I. If he had better offers from better teams where he'd win more trophies and earn a lot more money, than that makes him pretty loyal (although I personally think it should be expected of players and more common). If he was clearly too good for Tottenham but stayed there, yeah, that's doing a lot to prove loyalty. If he went to Arsenal though, that would be incredibly disloyal. So in that sense, he shouldn't be praised like crazy for not going to Arsenal. In the case of a player at one of the biggest clubs, it's different. They can't move to a bigger club and their situation can't get any better. Switching clubs by their own will is pretty much treachery (unless the player feels like a new challenge, playing for another club, or winning trophies in a different country). My point is we shouldn't gush over the loyalty of these players, we should pay more attention to the loyalty of guys like Le Tissier. Or at least put Veron's loyalty on par with Zanetti's.
 
If he went to Arsenal though, that would be incredibly disloyal.

We already had a player similar to King that done this which you probably know.:mad: In my opinion if it wasnt for the injuries King would have been a much better player than Campbell (judas), be Englands main centre back alongside Terry and probably would've stayed even then. Im also pretty sure bigger sides have made offers for him and he has rejected plus we have a wage cap so i dont think it is for the money.
 
I didn't twist anything of what you said, I merely carried out the implications in your arguments' response to mine.

As for the business metaphors, even if we do use them, it proves my argument. If a business put faith in me, trained me from age 13 onwards (even though the chances of me actually working for the business were very slim), then hired me and made me the employee that I was today, paying me tons of money, you don't think I wouldn't be obligated to show them loyalty? That it would be OK for me to jump ship to a rival for a higher salary, when I was already making millions? You don't think I should be expected to be professional? That someone earning millions should be praised for being professional?

Other than disagree with a few minor points that didn't have to do with my general argument, you didn't really disagree with anything I had to say. You agreed with me about the lack of professionalism and that it should be expected. Though you don't want to make the move, I think you agree that loyalty should be expected from the players as well. I'm not sure or not if you think one-club men such as Puyol and Guti (until he was sold) deserve more praise for their loyalty than say Henry or Beckham, or whether or not Le Tissier deserves more respect than Xavi. But I definitely think my arguments are pretty reasonable there.

What you did say was that I "insulted" the loyalty of these players. This to me proves my initial point about you guys...clearly your disagreements stem from an emotional reaction. You got the sense I was "insulting" your favorite players, which I wasn't, and on a subconscious level I'm sure the fact that the OP used all ManU players had something to do with it (after all, everyone here that disagreed with me was a ManU fan). I'm making a pretty obvious point: that these guys are no more loyal than a lot of other players out there who get no praise, they had it great at their clubs (millions would kill to be in their positions and would be that loyal, and this is how the game was before money ruined it) and there really was little reason for them to leave (other than a few extra dollars, which as I've already argued, would reflect poorly on them), and that they didn't make any real sacrifices to be one club men. Gerrard did. Le Tissier did. So I'm going to praise those two for their loyalty before I praise Xavi. I don't see how this is unreasonable and why everyone argued so vehemently against it other than the fact that you got an emotional reaction to it.

Yes, it probably was an emotional reaction. I fail to see why you're so hung up on this, what you're arguing has absolutely nothing to do with the players in question. It's the media that you are against, "why does X player get more attention than Y player". Giggs, Xavi etc. have all been fortunate enough to be exceptionally talented and in teams at the top of the world. Yes, Le Tissier was a special case, but I don't see why this thread should be taking anything away from player's loyalties, because the players that have been mentioned it cannot be questioned. The purpose of this thread should be how the media treats players.

You've lost yourself in your ranting, rather than "Giggs, Scholes, Xavi etc. are not as loyal as people like Le Tissie", your statement should be that Le Tissier should be recognised at an equal level as the others, otherwise you're just pointlessly taking away from those players, and that is why people have reacted and argued against you in the way we have. In truth, you're making a good point, you've gone about it in the complete wrong way though.
 
Gary Kelly a true loyal player with us when we were champions of england through the mid and late 90s when we didnt achieve much then on to the early 00s uefa cup, champions league, high placed premier league finishes then to the mid 00s, relegation to the championship then finally retired after we had been relegated to league 1 in 2007. A 16 year career full of ups and downs and always loyal to leeds......
 
I think they are obviously loyal players, but would they have been that loyal if they were not winning things? I think the one-club players you really have to admire are the ones that stay at a club even if they don't win something, that stay because they want to get some trophies with that club who they love. Players like Gary Kelly and Nat Lofthouse (although, I think he may have won something)
 
I think they are obviously loyal players, but would they have been that loyal if they were not winning things? I think the one-club players you really have to admire are the ones that stay at a club even if they don't win something, that stay because they want to get some trophies with that club who they love. Players like Gary Kelly and Nat Lofthouse (although, I think he may have won something)

a perfect example of this is bret omerod, even though he isnt a one club man he has played for blackpool in league 2, league 1, championship and now in the premier league good and bad times he stuck by blackpool...
 
We already had a player similar to King that done this which you probably know.:mad: In my opinion if it wasnt for the injuries King would have been a much better player than Campbell (judas), be Englands main centre back alongside Terry and probably would've stayed even then. Im also pretty sure bigger sides have made offers for him and he has rejected plus we have a wage cap so i dont think it is for the money.

Yeah well there's the thing...if these guys would just stay with their clubs, they could make their clubs get so much better. Stick around, let the owners buy some players, and the club would improve and then they could be heroes. I wish there were players with that type of loyalty. What if Rooney stayed at Everton and they broke up the big 4? Think of how awesome that would be.

Yes, it probably was an emotional reaction. I fail to see why you're so hung up on this, what you're arguing has absolutely nothing to do with the players in question. It's the media that you are against, "why does X player get more attention than Y player". Giggs, Xavi etc. have all been fortunate enough to be exceptionally talented and in teams at the top of the world. Yes, Le Tissier was a special case, but I don't see why this thread should be taking anything away from player's loyalties, because the players that have been mentioned it cannot be questioned. The purpose of this thread should be how the media treats players.

You've lost yourself in your ranting, rather than "Giggs, Scholes, Xavi etc. are not as loyal as people like Le Tissie", your statement should be that Le Tissier should be recognised at an equal level as the others, otherwise you're just pointlessly taking away from those players, and that is why people have reacted and argued against you in the way we have. In truth, you're making a good point, you've gone about it in the complete wrong way though.

Fair enough, I'm not going at explaining things though. :) But as for Le Tissier, my point is not that he should be on an equal level to say, Terry, I think we should mention Le Tissier first when we talk about loyal players. Then talk about the other guys after him. Also, I think that they get a little too much credit. I think that first of all, it's easier to be loyal to their clubs than Southampton, for example. And second, I think this kind of loyalty should be the norm. We should expect it from our players. The fans and clubs served them, so the players should serve the clubs. These prima donnas make me sick, and we shouldn't take it as fans! If Man City fans would refuse to sign players like Adebayor and sign young players who would be loyal to the club (or especially players who grew up as City fans), if they made a big stink about it the ownership would have to listen. Or if when Rooney did his contract thing, if the fans made a big deal about it, that would deter players from doing the same thing.

Gary Kelly a true loyal player with us when we were champions of england through the mid and late 90s when we didnt achieve much then on to the early 00s uefa cup, champions league, high placed premier league finishes then to the mid 00s, relegation to the championship then finally retired after we had been relegated to league 1 in 2007. A 16 year career full of ups and downs and always loyal to leeds......

Yeah great example. I remember him from the Leeds days. They are my favorite team in England, I just don't watch that much English football. That's the type of loyalty I'm talking about. He stuck with the team through thick and then. But we won't hear the media talk about him, we'll hear the media talk about how amazingly loyal John Terry is though. Of course I'm not saying Kelly is more loyal than Terry. I'm just saying that he has done more to prove loyalty than Terry, so if we're going to have a conversation about loyal players, let's bring up Kelly first. And when Terry retires, let's not have this huge outpour about how loyal Terry was.

---------- Post added at 05:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

i think they are obviously loyal players, but would they have been that loyal if they were not winning things? I think the one-club players you really have to admire are the ones that stay at a club even if they don't win something, that stay because they want to get some trophies with that club who they love. Players like gary kelly and nat lofthouse (although, i think he may have won something)

exactly my point. +100.
 
Top