I disagree. If the club's intentions were to force him out they would have made him train with the U-21s from the start. He was given full first-team facilities during preseason and made well aware of his squad status.
The Chelsea Thread
- Thread starter Ramires
- Start date
- Replies 35K
- Views 3M
I disagree. If the club's intentions were to force him out they would have made him train with the U-21s from the start. He was given full first-team facilities during preseason and made well aware of his squad status.
Again what alternative do you propose? No point making someone train with the first-team if he is not in its plans. Malouda knew that from the start. This situation is of his own doing. Club is still paying him his full wages etc.
doesnt mean he needs to be playing with the youth, could still train with the first team. That's a deliberate ploy to isolate him and force him out. He wants to finish with the club. The club is trying to find a way to not honour the contract.
Last edited:
Yes but its obvious playing football is not one of his priorities. He only wants to finish with the club because this is the last time he will be getting 90k p/w wages a year at any European Club.
I don't know Mike but I think its stupid making him train with the first-team when he is not even in our plans. Since playing football is not one of his priorities, why should he care whether he is training with the first-team or U-21s. Its hardly like he is going to see the pitch anyways
Suppose it makes no difference to him as long as he gets his wages
No its punitive punishment. Berbatov wasn't in our plans. We never did that to him. You've changed your tune when you thought Avb did it to Anelka and Alex.
The club has no obligation to play him, but there is no reason to put him in the youth, thats just to humiliate him, and every fan can see it for what it is.
He has other obligations outside football, like Drogba did, only Drogba went and got paid 300k a week instead.
Which the club is paying him in full- reluctantly perhaps but they have not broken any promises
Exactly. If a player has to honour a contract, so does the club. Funny how people ignore the other side of this.
Why reluctantly though? He was offered it by the board or whoever, so why are they being so dickish about it? Malouda is not in the wrong here. Though I anticipate haters to jump on his back even though it's him being treated harshly
I see where your coming from... I suppose their is no reason for the club to humiliate him.
I don't feel its comparable to the Alex/Anelka situation though. Alex and Anelka were in the clubs first-team plans till October/November. However, after a couple of poor performances they had a meeting with AVB and agreed to leave. No reason for AVB to humiliate them further by banning them from the senior car-park, Christmas dinner etc.
Quite a few clubs want him such as Lyon. Just no one wants to give him the wages he is demanding. His contract is up after this season so he is anyways finished at Chelsea
Will be interesting to hear what RDM says when a reporter questions him
Club are doing exactly the same here, player not wanted/in plans: ostracise him. As Carl said easier, exact same treatment, makes you wonder if it really was AVB who made that call with those two players.
But they are trying to get around it by forcing him out by treating him that way.
I suppose so although the key difference here is that Malouda is being treated this way in a bid to force him to move while Alex/Anelka were already prepared to leave anyways so their was no reason to treat them harshly
I don't know but it seems as if AVB used the Alex/Anelka situation as a ploy to assert his authority on the players. 'My way or the highway' that sort of stuff. No reason for the club to make AVB a scapegoat. Roman liked and backed AVB heavily
Agree dont see the reason to treat them harshly, then or now.
Didnt back him that heavily. or he would have had the player meeting before sacking him. Seems a good way to undermine him if you want to get rid. Remember how AVB said certain things were not true, but he couldnt say because he was forced to sign a non disclosure? Makes you wonder.
Steve*
Y.N.W.A.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,697
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 38
Seems a bit like Winsotn Bogarde case to me... He will never get the same kind of wages elsewhere and wont leave as he is making money. Sadly some players see this as more valueable than playing. But agree with the comments here, he is in a contract and is fully entitled to see it out. Glad Liverpool didnt sign him before Chelsea all those years ago 
Technically, yes. Reasonably, no.
Malouda is an employee. A business wouldn't just decide to do the equivalent of sending a senior management executive to work with interns. If Malouda had thrown a strop or had given somesuch non-contractual - but still in breach of reasonable bounds - reason, then perhaps. As it is, this strikes me as grossly unfair to someone who doesn't actually seem to have done anything wrong. If Chelsea don't want him, then perhaps they shouldn't have given him a three-year contract. It's not Malouda's fault when that happens.
Seems a bit like Winsotn Bogarde case to me... He will never get the same kind of wages elsewhere and wont leave as he is making money. Sadly some players see this as more valueable than playing. But agree with the comments here, he is in a contract and is fully entitled to see it out. Glad Liverpool didnt sign him before Chelsea all those years ago
Why? Malouda's been a top-quality player in the Premiership for half a decade now.