Ljungberg fiasco

Requiem4adream · 09-08-2008 1:08am #1

This Ljungberg fiasco at West Ham beggars belief. So apparently he had 2 years left to run on his £75,000 a week contract, accepts £6million payoff to cancel it and is now considering retirement?

What is going on?? The whole affair doesnt say a lot for him or for West Ham for that matter. To use the Dunphyism, it's an absolute shambles. This a year after he said the following: (way to go to repay the chairman)

".... I feel it had to be something very, very special for me to leave.

"For me it is about why I wanted to join West Ham, not why I wanted to leave Arsenal.

"The reason I wanted to join is because of West Ham chairman Eggert Magnusson.

"He wants to take West Ham to the top of the country. He is willing to go on the market and buy great players and mix them with youth players from the academy.

"I am really happy to be here and he wants me to help take this club forward. It feels like a big challenge and I am really happy with it."

Boggles · 09-08-2008 1:10am

Cheaper to pay him off I suppose.

OPENROAD · 09-08-2008 1:15am

It is down to West Ham. don't see how you can blame Freddie.

Wish him well he has been plagued by injury in the last couple of years but was absolutely superb for us and will always be associated with the invincibles.

JPA · 09-08-2008 1:25am

I don't understand this. Couldn't they have sold him for 1 or 2 million?
And perhaps continued to pay some of his wages so he would leave.

Karmafaerie · 09-08-2008 1:32am

West Hams transfer record in the last two years isn't glowing, is it?!

MrPillowTalk · 09-08-2008 7:24am

Its amazing how badly WH are run they have so many past it second raters on huge money, they are another Leeds in the making.

how on earth did Fred end up on 75k a week, his agent must be increddible.

Galvasean · 09-08-2008 12:51pm

What's this a club playing compensation to a released player? Surely thats never happened before!!!

corcaighcailin9 · 09-08-2008 12:53pm

Saw on bbc that he's thinking of joining Becks at LA Galaxy. Good move I suppose in case the 6 million payoff isn't enough what with this credit crunch an' all...

zAbbo · 09-08-2008 1:58pm

The 2 year contract is worth 7.8m, so they pay him off at 6m. Where's the point in that?

May as well keep him

Royale with Cheese · 09-08-2008 2:01pm

Yeah they could have brought out a line of underwear or something and got him to model them.

Could have made a fortune off that.

Galvasean · 09-08-2008 2:20pm

Serves them right for offering such a massive contract to a player who was clearly over-the-hill and very injury prone. not to mention paying 3million for him up front. I always taught it was a huge gamble from the start.

corcaighcailin9 · 09-08-2008 4:02pm

It was a gamble alright but he was such a quality player at Arsenal I don't think anyone at West Ham could've foreseen what a flop he'd be.
Another master stroke getting rid of him by Monsieur Wenger you'd have to say.

AARRRGH · 09-08-2008 4:05pm

I think it's a great move by Freddie. He now absolutely doesn't ever have to worry about money as he gets older and has nothing to do.

Guy:Incognito · 09-08-2008 4:08pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

I think it's a great move by Freddie. He now absolutely doesn't ever have to worry about money as he gets older .

Whereas before he was living hand to mouth and paycheck to paycheck with a bleak future of poverty lying ahead?

AARRRGH · 09-08-2008 5:38pm

Stekelly wrote: »

Whereas before he was living hand to mouth and paycheck to paycheck with a bleak future of poverty lying ahead?

No, I'm saying a 6 million payoff is a very nice retirement fund.

Raskolnikov · 09-08-2008 6:17pm

So West Ham spent the guts of £10m for a player who played 25 games for them. What's that, £400k a game?

From what I saw of him last season, he didn't deserve 1/10th what he earned.

Requiem4adream · 09-08-2008 6:23pm

zAbbo wrote: »

The 2 year contract is worth 7.8m, so they pay him off at 6m. Where's the point in that?

May as well keep him

This is pretty much my point. Something is well and truly amiss here if they feel the need to pay 80% his contract in full to get rid of him now. Ok, it's a saving of 1.8m but surely if he stayed and played his part he could make up that in goals/assists/merchandising etc.

Also, surely they could have offloaded him on a free to a Prem Club (i can think of a few who might use him), offered to pay most of a new wage offer, even if it ended up costing them 40-50k a week it'd be much better than this shambles.

It doesnt reflect well on the player at all that he's prepared to cut n run like this. If he had any professional pride he'd have declined the offer and tried to stay fight for his place and help the team.

OPENROAD · 09-08-2008 6:27pm

Requiem4adream wrote: »

It doesnt reflect well on the player at all that he's prepared to cut n run like this. If he had any professional pride he'd have declined the offer and tried to stay fight for his place and help the team.

I don't agree with you,don't think Freddie is cut out for the Premiership anymore he was injury prone during his latter days at Arsenal,one of the reasons we sold him, I think west ham see this now, so really don't agree with you having a go at him, a move to the states would be good for him.

Bubs101 · 09-08-2008 6:39pm

Requiem4adream wrote: »

It doesnt reflect well on the player at all that he's prepared to cut n run like this. If he had any professional pride he'd have declined the offer and tried to stay fight for his place and help the team.

In fairness, if you were offered 80% of your current wage to not work there for two years you'd bite there hand off

Jivin Turkey · 09-08-2008 6:44pm

Raskolnikov wrote: »

So West Ham spent the guts of £10m for a player who played 25 games for them. What's that, £400k a game?

That's even about three times what Harry Kewell was on!!!

Requiem4adream · 09-08-2008 6:49pm

Bubs101 wrote: »

In fairness, if you were offered 80% of your current wage to not work there for two years you'd bite there hand off

agree ...but i dont already have millions in the bank. All i'm saying is if he offered to stay and try his best it'd have reflected a lot better on him than readily agreeing to take the money and leg it!

As for the Hammers, their transfer record over past 3-5 years is shocking. Paying inflated fees and wages. The new Leeds is not a bad assessment. I think the current board were mad to buy the club when they did.

Vokes · 09-08-2008 7:01pm

^That's the thing though...would he have got his game if he stayed? I don't think so, cos with Behrami arriving I reckon Ljundberg wouldn't be able to keep his place ahead of the new guy given his injury history.

Im suprised tho that West Ham didn't sell him (or maybe they discretely tried to?).

Ljungberg fiasco

Comments