Based in London and writing for a global audience our aim is to produce EliteFootballTalk. Enjoy the site and feel welcome to join in our discussion on the beautiful game.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Chelsea claim Gallas move due to ill-discipline

Chelsea Football Club released a statement yesterday afternoon in regard to their reasons for selling their France defender William Gallas to Arsenal and in answer to claims said to have come from Gallas after his move. The statement included that:

- Gallas refused to join up with the team in pre-season in the United States, despite agreeing the dates on which he would return after the World Cup. Jose Mourinho was said to have further promised Gallas that, despite not accepting an improved offer, he would still include Gallas for selection if Gallas joined up with the team on tour and "abided by the rules." Talks after this then culminated in Gallas refusing to play for Chelsea again.

- Gallas at first refused to play in last season's FA Cup semi-final against Liverpool, to push the club into offering him an improved contract, although he did start that game and had misjudged the header that allowed Luis Garcia to run on without anyone to challenge him and score Liverpool's winning second. He also refused to make himself available for and did not feature in this season's first league game against Manchester City at Stamford Bridge, which left four available defenders including John Terry nursing a niggling injury.

- Gallas threatened that if forced to play or was disciplined financially and/or otherwise, he would do something extreme and adverse to the team, including score an own goal, deliberatedly get himself dismissed or make a deliberate error.

- Gallas did not move to further his career, he was only interested in signing a lucrative contract, refusing an improved offer by Chelsea and therefore choosing instead to prefer that offered by Arsenal.

Gallas has responded by saying he did not make such threats about scoring an own goal and admitted he was determined in his wish to move and added he will eventually come forth with his reasons for doing so.

If all of these allegations are true, Chelsea must be content to rid themselves of Gallas, clearly a player unhappy with his presence at the club. Any club would wish to retain a player of Gallas' prowess but when a player is clearly unhappy it usually leads to their departure unless talks are successful of an amicable solution. For a player to threaten, much less actually carry out, to intentionally score an own goal or deliberately err against his current side is deplorable. Refusing to play is, in my opinion, surely a breach of contract?

Chelsea seemed prepared to carry on with business except for, in their opinion, Gallas still attacking Mourinnho verbally after leaving. Some have said the deal has done, business complete, Chelsea should let Gallas' words flow to, over and pass them. What I perceive from Gallas is that he has been unhappy for a while and the club have not accommodated him as he feels he deserved, yet refused to discuss letting him leave the club. It was only early March, nearly six months ago, that Gallas thumped the winning goal from outside the box, deep into second half injury time, against Spurs in the league and sparked a scene of mass celebration with Mourinho, the other players and the bench.

Was Chelsea right to issue the statement? Should they have instead ignored Gallas and consider him a disgruntled player? Are Chelsea fans glad to know of what potentially had occurred between Gallas and the club?



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chelsea was definitely right to issue the statement.

Chelsea supporters have always had a soft spot for Gallas, and this is the way he repays us?

He needs to get a perspective. As the statement reads; before he came to Chelsea he had a French 2nd division title to his name.

I was disappointed after the world cup final when he tried to justify Zidanes head butt. There is definitely a feeling that he needs to get a perspective on things.

I can’t wait for the Stamford Bridge leg of our games versus Arsenal.

Gallas you should be ashamed, Chelsea made you a very wealthy man and a double Premiership Champion!

9/05/2006 4:05 am

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right or wrong, I don't discuss here but what Cjelsea did was a childist act and un-professional.

9/05/2006 6:35 am

Blogger RedsMan said...

Thanks Anon (4.05AM) and Sonny, though I would implore Sonny to discuss his/her point further.

Gallas has, apparently since this morning, issued a statement while on duty with France:

"All this is very, very petty on behalf of Chelsea. But at the same time, coming on behalf of its new leaders, that does not surprise me. Even if Chelsea has much money, its new leaders lack class."

Were this to occur at Liverpool, I would like to know what had happened with a player or players and would be disappointed for my club to become involved in a set-to with any of them, particularly in public.

Certainly, as Anon above indicated, this makes for a possibly tempestuous meeting at Stamford Bridge on 10th December and in their penultimate meeting on 5th May. It is making fodder for the media but I would look for Chelsea to ride over it now and let it lie, so too should Gallas, as it leaves a bitter taste.


9/05/2006 7:04 am

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The club's comments all sound a bit unlikely, and it's all very hard to believe.

Jose Mourinho doesn't tolerate any nonsense from his players.

If Gallas actually did threaten to score an own goal in the FA Cup Semi Final, surely Jose's response would have been to say "thanks for the season you've given us, William, but you're training with the kids until you learn some respect"

On the other hand, I can't understand why Gallas has made no attempt to deny it. He didn't say the comments weren't true. His main point is that chelsea are petty and lack class.

A very strange situation.


9/05/2006 7:44 am

Blogger BlindJak said...

This is one seriously weird situation. I agree that we as Chelsea fans have a right to know if one of our (former) players makes such threats as we put so much into supporting them. However I have to question the wisdom of such a move by Chelsea.

What good is airing any such accusations in public? Those disposed to disliking Chelsea are not going to believe the stories accusations so why publish mention them? To placate the fans? While many of us we sad to se a player we had dubbed Billy Legend leave we understood that sometimes breakdowns in communication happen. After all there were no angry hordes of Chelsea fans out side Kenyon’s office waving pitch forks and touches calling for his head because of the sale to Arsenal.

So what was there to gain? So what is Gallas made a few comments about Jose being fickle. Just point to the immensely positive comments, which have now been overshadowed, by Duff and Huth.

So onto the allegations. Is there any truth in them? We’ll never know

9/05/2006 10:18 am

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets be honest here. Chelsea as a club would have won very little had it not been for Abramovic. Gallas came before the Russian, and had enough quality to sustain his place despite the millions. Pointing out that his only title was in the 2nd division is exceptionally childish-Chelsea have very little too: 1 title, the other 2 bought. Plus are chelsea fans seriously going to believe this? I dont trust every word out of the club, and often Arsene deliberately be economical with the truth, concerning defeats, red cards and so on. But if Chelsea fans want to believe it they can. I think it is unbelievable, not only the content but the fact they have released such a slanderous statement about a player who played magnificantly for 5 years.
Compare that to Arsene on Cole.

Another issue I like to mention how stupid Mourinho is. I highly doubt that mourinho meant it in that way, but still, calling a black guy with african roots a 'slave' is crazy. Absolutely crazy.

9/05/2006 10:53 am

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gallas moved to arsenal for less money than chelsea were offering.
This does show a lack of class on the clubs behalf to continue this after the player has gon.
This seems to prove that you will miss gallas more than we will miss cole.

9/05/2006 11:04 am

Blogger RedsMan said...

Anon (10.53AM), when I read Mourinho say the FFF treated Makelele like a slave, the first thing I thought was in the metaphorical sense. Mourinho may be accustomed to speaking out before considering consequences but on this one I believe no ill-will was meant from his words. He would, or certainly could, have said the very same in exact circumstances with any other player. I dont know if I could compare Makelele to Thuram, who had also announced his retirement yet has joined up with the France squad too.

But I digress, and agree with those who say it was not appropriate to issue such a statement, despite Gallas allegedly attacking Mourinho after leaving. Disgruntled players may or may not do this having departed and a club should put it down that they had to conduct business to include the departure in the best interests of the club, more so than the player. If I was Mourinho I would think 'ah well, he has gone, no longer my concern, we move on.'

I suppose we await Gallas' future statement on his reasons and I wonder if, once the issue dies down, will such a statement revive it all again. Can Chelsea fans tell us if there is truth in the rumour Mourinho was furious with Peter Kenyon for sending Gallas off as they did? As a neutral, who had the better deal is one question. Both played well in the World Cup, domestically they are two of the best in the league, and for me both players could equally name any team to play in.


9/05/2006 1:56 pm

Blogger BlindJak said...

Reds, re who got the better end of the deal. You need to look at this from two perspectives business and football.

With Gallas having one year left on his contract the most we could command for him would have been £10m (And that’s probably generous considering the recent transfer precedent set by the Webster who’s just joined Wigan from Hearts). So £10m + £5m = £15m which is far less than Arsenal wanted and even below his supposed £16m buy out clause. So on the business side Chelsea have come out on top.

As to the footballing Arsenal have signed a decent RB, very good LB and a world class CB. Considerably strengthening their back line and defensive options which have been stretched to their limits by injury in the past year. So their defence is stronger.

Chelsea, on the other hand, has signed a world class LB (arguably the best there currently is) but have lost the world class CB and good cover in the FB positions. Thus leaving them weakened in the defensive line (letting Huth go now seems to be a big gamble). So on the football side Arsenal have come out on top.

At least that’s the way I see it.

As for any truth in the rumours re Jose’s supposed fury at Gallas’s transfer, we’ll probably never know. We only have the press to go on for that but I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them.

9/05/2006 3:25 pm

Blogger RedsMan said...

A trusting press would definitely be a misnomer.

I would go along with your estimation on Gallas - if Cole is valued at £25m then Gallas is £20m. Cole is one of the best LBs' in Europe, not sure globally. Gallas is a sharp defender who can be utilised as a full-back. Alongside Thuram France conceded twice from open play in the World Cup, so did England with Cole. Both are sharp in attack.

As you said BJ, Chelsea could only command so much due to Gallas' contract in its last year. Cole= Gallas + £5m, where Gallas should be £10m but instead is £20m. Both clubs were put into a position to release one of their star players reluctantly to each other, and practically at the eleventh hour a deal had to made and agreed on to complete the moves once and for all.


9/05/2006 4:41 pm

Blogger T said...

Good discussion- I would have like to have contributed at the time!

I don't have much respect for Chelsea trying to publicly castigate our new player- and not much thought seems to have gone into the fact that saying such a thing feasibly could have serious security implications for the player concerned.

Also, you have to think that such a visibly committed player like Gallas must have been at his wits end to have uttered such a thing (that is, if it's true that it did)... and I personally think it is unfair for Chelsea to deliberately decide to rubbish him and his five years service for something that may or may not have been said in the heat of the moment.

In particular, the comment about only winning a second divison title before joining Chelsea seems to me uncalled for.

All in all, an unseemly episode.... and I agree BJ when you question what Chelsea feel they had to gain to embroil themselves in controvesy again.

9/10/2006 7:13 pm

Blogger T said...

BTW- Blindjak I totally agree with your dichotomy on who has got the better deal.

I was absolutely delighted when I heard that Gallas was on his way to Arsenal- to lose another quality and experienced player without recruiting a player of similar stature would have been a big blow. Plus, we especially needed another CB after the departure of Sol Campbell- so to recruit Gallas whom I have always be of seems to be an excellent coup.

And of course we have Ashley Cole's doppelganger - Gael Clichy - ready to replace Ash. I just wish the young French defender would not be so injury prone in the foot area!

9/10/2006 7:19 pm


Post a Comment

<< Home


Locations of visitors to this page