It has just been announced that Javier Mascherano has joined Liverpool on loan, somehow bending FIFA's two-clubs-a-year-max rule. But this is a good thing. Over the last few months, poor old Javi has been well and truly done in the preverbial. I only hope it isn't about to happen again.
Javi was the victim of one of the most bizarre transfers of all time, explained in an article that recently popped on this usually in-the-know site. Over the past few months I have heard similar doing the rounds in the pubs near Upton Park. The basic jist- while Tevez is allowed to play as much as he likes, Mascherano's contract was cut of a thoroghly more cynical cloth. If Mascherano exceeded a certain ammount of games for the club, West Ham had to cough up an awful lot of cash.
When Joorabchian's takeover bid failed, Mascherano was left as the unwanted sweetener that hadn't sweetened much at all. The money was due to Joorabchian, who saw himself as the future owner of the Hammers- therefore making any 'payment' a bit like paying yourself. But as he didn't buy the club, the deal made absolutely no financial sense for the new Icelandic owners. Ergo, Mascherano hasn't even made the bench for the past dozen games, whilst Nigel Quashie started our last few games in defensive midfield.
The moral of the story: Allowing a person, or a business to own a player is a thoroghly horrible idea, and has resulted in an extremely talented young footballer being moved to another country for nothing. Hopefully a similar move isn't being mooted at Liverpool, although they couldprobably afford the cash. If FIFA kick up a fuss about Mascherano moving to Liverpool, without saying anything about it being ok that a footballer is owned by a third party, they are a bunch of prats.
And yes, I did think this whole thing was a good idea a few months back. I was wrong.
1 comment:
So how did Mascherano come to be 'owned' by Kia Joorabchian? Surely Javier is not really the innocent party here.
I don't know the details of the agreement between player and 'owner' and it's likely you don't either.
But the player allowed his rights to be owned by Jooro in exchange for something (money, etc.) He was a willing partner in a deal over which he had little control of his playing time.
I have a similar distaste for the 'owning' part as you do. However, let's be clear that the player signed of his own free will. If he didn't understand the ramifications of such a deal then the fault can only be his.
Post a Comment