Quote of the weekend

Manchester City treated us with little respect and broke rules," stated Moyes.

"I found it very difficult to accept that a club with so many similarities to Everton should suddenly start acting with no class

via news.bbc.co.uk

Comments

[Quinn]

I’m glad you’ve brought this up as I’d be interested in your take on the whole Lescott situation. Clearly we’re going to view this through blue-tinted spectacles of the appropriate hue, but for me it is David Moyes who has shown the lack of class, and I have lost most of what remained of the respect I once had for him. His attitude has been petulant, his public treatment of Lescott a disgrace, and his stated grievance a moving target that began with him complaining that City had even dared to try to sign Lescott and ended with him berating City for not offering enough money in the first place.

It’s easy enough to bandy about allegations of showing a lack of respect and acting illegally without mention specifics, but what are City supposed to have actually done wrong? They wanted to buy a player. When their bid was rejected, they offered a higher figure. Isn’t that what happens? I think the main gripe is revealed in Moyes’ statement that City are “a club with so many similarities to Everton”. In fact, I’d suggest that Moyes and most Everton fans would consider City to be a smaller club than Everton, and so find it galling to see one of their players being prised away by a club they consider to be their inferior. The contrast with the way Moyes rolled over to let Ferguson have his way over Rooney seem to be instructive.

What do you reckon?

[aje]

This could take a while... (!)

For me the bottom line is this: if City had made a £20m offer at the beginning of summer, we'd have sold him and had plenty of time to locate and bed in a replacement. No complaints from anyone.

However my understanding of what happened (biased, of course) was that City made a couple of cheeky bids aimed solely at unsettling the player. They also made them very public. Lescott had been told to remain quiet to make sure he got his loyalty payments etc, and City were surprised that Moyes didn't just roll over.

Moyes was pretty consistent throughout: "he's not for sale, stop bothering us". The unspoken caveat was "unless you offer silly money", but at that point you weren't. It was only at the start of pre-season that Lescott started to push the issue, and handed in a transfer request. At that point Moyes decided again not to roll over, and quite rightly told him to get on with things. Then there's the war of words with Hughes making some pretty belittling comments about Everton (some small club jibe?), some pretty dismissive ones about Moyes (i.e. negotiations are ongoing), and Moyes telling him to shut up (I run this club).

Obviously at that point it was inevitable and Moyes did well to get £24m ish and bring in Distin. Most Everton fans consider this good business, but if only it had been resolved quicker. Clearly City spent a long time unsettling the player (even discussing him in public) and Lescott bided his time so as to avoid having to put in a transfer request. This meant we went into the new season with an unsettled centre back and instead of focusing on the team the manager is having to search for a new signing and field questions about Lescott. That uncertainty was deliberately created by City and Lescott.

I'm not sure why he started against Arsenal, but I don't think he was especially bad in that game. What Moyes said afterwards about his attitude we're not in a position to judge (i'm sure Moyes felt a little betrayed because I understand he was on very good terms with Lescott, even having wagers on how many goals he'd score etc), but I think it was pretty tame. He just said he wasn't quite right, I don't think he went over the top.

The difference with Rooney is that when we sold him (a) Moyes had only been at the club a couple of years and it was off the back of almost being relegated. He didn't have as much influence as now and Kenwright did the negotiation (I doubt Moyes even spoke to Ferguson about money); (b) we were desperate for the money and weren't in a position to play hard ball.

I do think Moyes now has final say on transfers (if not he'd walk, and Kenwright wouldn't be so stupid - for all his faults he's backed Moyes 100%), so I don't think we can compare the two situations.

[Quinn]

Interesting points. One of the problems I think we have, though, is that much of what is said to have happened is primarily speculation. Moyes has been good at throwing out general insults and unsubstantiated allegations – City’s behaviour has been disgusting, they lack class, have broken rules – but fought shy of mentioning any specific wrongdoing, which suggests to me that he is just mouthing off and casting aspersions to divert attention from the fact that he found himself having to sell a player he had promised he wouldn’t sell. Seriously; if City have broken any rules then let’s name the rules that have been broken, let’s go to the FA, and if we can implicate Garry Cook in anything illegal then let’s get him out of my club.

You won’t be too surprised to learn that I see events slightly differently. Trying to stick as best as I can to what I remember as the facts, City made a couple of bids for Lescott and they were turned down. So far, so humdrum. It’s what happens. No expectation that Moyes should just roll over, but no reason why City should pay over the odds in the first instance for a player; just common or garden negotiating. It’s possible that City put in low bids in order to unsettle Lescott, but I see no evidence that they did anything other than open the bidding at a reasonable figure. Let’s face it, City have the resources to pay whatever they want, so why faff about trying to unsettle the player when they don’t need to? We've bought a lot of players over the past few years, and I don't remember anyone else making this complaint so it doesn't seem to fit our MO. Anyway, all these negotiations were conducted in the usual manner in the press, with anodyne statements announcing rejected bids. Then, out of the blue as far as I can recall, Moyes exploded, slagged off City for their behaviour and turning what had seemed like a routine bit of haggling into an acrimonious slanging match. It was he, not City, who went public and made this into a media story and started conducting matters through the press. And yes, Hughes responded, disrespectfully, and was out of order in my opinion, implying that City are a bigger club than Everton and questioning Moyes’ playing record. I won’t defend his actions as I don’t agree with them, other than to say that they were retaliatory; but that’s no excuse.

With regards Moyes’ treatment of Lescott being tame, I just think it is wrong for managers to criticise players publicly, period. The general opinion is that Everton were collectively woeful against Arsenal, but only Lescott was singled out for criticism, and to then prevent him from training with the first team seems petty and vindictive. Not impressed. And throughout the whole affair I feel Lescott conducted himself with quiet dignity, keeping his head down and only handing in a transfer request when he felt he had no other option, a far cry from Moyes’ incandescent outrage (and, for that matter, Hughes’ smug wind-ups).

My comparison with the Rooney sale was simply that one of Moyes’ criticisms of City was that they were conducting business too close to the start of the season, in contrast to Real Madrid, who had signed Ronaldo at the start of the close season (ignoring the fact that they had also spent the whole of the previous season trying to sign him). Yet United signed Rooney at the stroke of midnight at the end of transfer deadline day and not a peep was heard out of Moyes. However, point taken that at that time Moyes’ and Everton’s positions were not as secure as they now are.

To sum up, I really don’t think that £15m was an unreasonable opening bid for Lescott, I’ve no reason to suspect that it was an attempt to unsettle Lescott; but if Everton wanted £20m then they could have just have said that that’s what they wanted and said that City’s had failed to match their valuation and taken it from there. If that had happened then perhaps everything could have been wrapped up in good time. On reflection, as I alluded to earlier, I’m beginning to wonder if the problem may have been that Moyes had painted himself into a corner in promising that Lescott would not leave, and when it became clear that he was going to have to go he knew that he was going to lose face, so he hit out at City by making allegations for which there is no evidence: out of genuine anger at the situation no doubt, but also as a diversionary tactic on the grounds that a broken promise doesn’t look so bad if a demonised City are believed to have acted illegally.

[aje]

I don't think the opening bid was £15m and I don't think Everton leaked the story to the press. Neither of us know, obviously, but that's my understanding.

I sympathise with the point that Moyes should either lodge an official complaint of shut up, but again I don't think he's too put out by it ultimately. I don't think Premiership managers have any faith in the league to resolve these types of disputes, and it's generally accepted that it's what big clubs do. The galling thing is that it's City doing it. I'm sure if it was Liverpool or United the attitude would be "this is what we've come to expect", but this is why Moyes talks about the clubs being so similar. I think he was genuinely disappointed that City approached the deal like Real Madrid would, instead of like, dare I say, Everton would.

We all know that players get tapped up, so it's unfair to say Moyes can't complain about it unless he launches a one man campaign to tidy up football. We all know clubs do it, it's just that we didn't expect City to.

Also, don't forget Moyes must be the only manager in the Prem to have successfully sued a Prem player for libel. He has a track record for dealing with these things in a very professional way (i.e. through the courts without mouthing off to the press), but in the Lescott case I just don't think it's worth it. What have we to gain by making it all drag on? All Moyes is saying is that he's disappointed. I think that's fair enough.

(Also, I'd forgotten the comment Hughes made about Moyes' playing record. To be honest I don't think Everton fans were that annoyed by City the club, it was a large part aimed at Hughes. The fact that he started acting like a big shot before winning a single trophy really rankled, and seemed to symbolise the club as a whole).

Finally, I don't envy City's riches at all. I know Fellaini's piroutte was a moment that comes nowhere close to Champions League qualification, getting to Wembley, etc, but whereas Chelsea and Newcastle deserve knobhead Directors that splash money we thought you lot were more like us. Destined to underachieve, but at least do so with integrity and honesty.

[aje]

Also - I notice Steve Bruce's comments about Liverpool [http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/22/steve-bruce-liverpool-antics]

Again, I don't see a problem with Bruce saying that, but would you argue that if he's not lodged an official complaint with the league he's showing a lack of 'class'?

[Quinn]

I’ve had a quick look back through the BBC archives of the whole Lescott business – hardly authoritative I’d agree, but better than nothing – and a first bid of £15m and a second of £18m are the only figures mention. The report of the £15m being rejected doesn’t mention a source for the information other than to state that Everton have rejected the bid. The report of the rejected second bid gives the Everton website as the source, so it seems that they put that information at least in the public domain; it featured on the BBC alongside a comment from Moyes’ outrider, Phil Neville, criticising City for having the nerve to keep negotiations ongoing. Hughes seemed to be playing a straight bat at this time, but a few days later Moyes labels City disgusting and the whole thing blows up.

You’re taking the Moyes line that City have acted in an underhand manner, but prior to Moyes’ outburst what do we know that they have done that is wrong? Other than the fact that they made repeated bids for a player who Moyes insisted was not for sale then I don’t know of anything. Now I understand why you’re taking the Moyes line, that’s natural; but for the same reason I’ll stick with the Hughes line that City have acted entirely properly, until I read a single specific allegation that illustrates how City have acted incorrectly.

On tapping up; well, you’re speaking as if it’s happened and we don’t know that, but with the number of agents in the game nowadays it’s almost a quaint anachronism. Clearly City must have had some word from either Lescott’s camp or within Everton that rejected bids of £15m and £18m weren’t the end of the story hence their continued interest, but that needn’t imply tapping up, I’m sure Mark Hughes is an easy man to find. As for Moyes having to “put up or shut up”, I appreciate that to actually embark on legal action is an onerous task and I can understand why Moyes wouldn’t bother taking it; however, if you are going to publicly accuse another club of something as serious as breaking the rules then I think you’d better have something to back it up. Moyes hasn’t, as far as I’m aware, so he can shut up.

And the same goes for Steve Bruce, frankly. He’s right at the top of my list of irritating managers who I can’t abide listening to, actually. What have Liverpool actually done wrong? He doesn’t say. All he mentions is a load of newspaper rubbish, including supposed quotes from him, which you would think would do the job of the big clue stick. So the media spout shite? Well I never; I’d have thought Bruce had been around the block enough times to know that. Have these media stories come from Liverpool? Who knows? They may very well have; but they could be from Kenwyne Jones’ agent, or they could be from a Sunderland board member who wants rid so they can get some cash, or they could have come from the overactive imagination of a press hack or his unreliable Sunderland mole. We simply don’t know, and unless Steve Bruce can point to any specific action that Liverpool have taken that they shouldn’t have, then he should keep his allegations to himself.

[aje]

I just think you're making a naive argument. It seems obvious that Liverpool and Jones are trying to initiate a move. I'm not a big fan of Bruce but I think he's entitled to have a moan and ultimately it's the same situation as Moyes was in.

The first bid for Lescott that was made public was £15m but I don't believe that was the first contact. Maybe I place too much trust in internet message boards but I strongly believe (based on consistent evidence) that information leaks out of clubs in many ways. In the same way that I heard Senderos had signed via a message board, and that Arteta would make the bench today, I believe that we rejected an approach for Lescott before the £15m bid. I don't expect this stuff to reach the papers because it doesn't sell papers. The whole Rooney situation reminded me that the BBC are a million miles from the impartial, objective umpires we'd all like to believe.

To try to boil this down to specific factual claims, my support for Moyes rests on my belief that City/Hughes:

- Spoke to the player before lodging a bid
- Discussed this in the press even though Everton had turned down an official approach
- Advised the player to hold off handing in a transfer request until they'd had a bid turned down
- Deliberately dragged it out whilst they worked on trying to sign other targets.

Whether we can ever establish if the above are true (or even if they're wrong), that's where I stand. Pretty much.

[Quinn]

Firstly, on Bruce, I’m not saying that Liverpool and Jones aren’t trying to engineer a move, and I haven’t followed the story at all; just that the existence of bullshit media stories isn’t proof of anything other than the media is full of shit. That article is instructive; on the one hand Bruce says that Liverpool are disrespectful, on the other Bruce keeps reading rubbish in the media. I’d have more respect for him if he’d actually accused Liverpool of feeding lies to the media, but he won’t, because he doesn’t know, so he’s just mouthing off. Similarly, if he'd restricted his criticism to the press then I would readily agree with him.

The more we’ve discussed this the more I’ve come to see it as just playing to the gallery, and it’s so easy. Let’s face it; any fans reaction to another club trying to buy one of their favoured players is an instinctive “fuck off”. So, all Moyes has to do is to throw out a few vague criticisms of the chasing club – they’re disgusting, disrespectful, lack class, nothing specific – and the fans and message boards can fill in the blanks – they must have tapped him up, did they put in low bids to unsettle him, I reckon they've deliberately dragged it out – regardless of the veracity of the claims. Who cares if City’s reputation has been trashed on the basis of nothing more than hints and Chinese whispers? That’s not Moyes’ concern.

With regards your factual claims, none of which I believe came from Moyes, I can’t deny that they may have occurred, but I’d be curious where they came from, other than from your or others’ speculation. I’m sure facts do leak out from clubs all the time, and some will find their way onto message boards, but there may be something of a “survivor bias” in your estimate of their accuracy. I wouldn’t believe anything I read in them, or the media, until it can be clearly verified. (And incidentally, regarding Senderos, weren’t you trying to sign him in the summer? You dragged that out didn’t you? Put in a ridiculously low bid just to unsettle the player, and then waited until the next transfer window to take him on loan? You see how easy it is?)

Anyway, taking your factual claims one at a time, you state that City…

Spoke to the player before lodging a bid

Perhaps. I wouldn’t bet against it. There are so many agents and hangers-on in the game with a vested interest in engineering a move that I would imagine it is rife and that all clubs, Everton included, have indulged in this sort of thing. Frankly I think it’s just the way things are, and it doesn’t bother me. I’m sure some City players’ agents are chatting to other clubs as we speak.

Discussed this in the press even though Everton had turned down an official approach

Other than answering straight questions at press conferences and the like with the answer “we’re still interested, and negotiations are ongoing”, I don’t know of anything, but in fairness my interest in transfer negotiations tends to begin and end when I see the player photographed on the pitch hoisting the club's scarf above his head. There's too much bullshit elsewhere

Advised the player to hold off handing in a transfer request until they’d had a bid turned down

Perhaps, but why bother? What would be gained?

Deliberately dragged it out whilst they worked on trying to sign other targets

Again, why bother? I don’t see it being in anyone’s interest to drag it out. You could argue that it was Moyes who dragged it out by steadfastly refusing to countenance Lescott’s sale, but obviously that’s his choice.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. That's not a signal for its end, just to say it has been interesting to see the other side of the fence on this one.

[aje]

Same here

[Quinn]

Oh, and incidentally, how would you feel if Simon Grayson criticised Everton for their behaviour, because there are newspaper reports claiming Everton have an agreement with Jermaine Beckford to sign on a free at the end of the season?

(I appreciate that after denouncing speculation I'm now asking a hypothetical, but I've never claimed consistency.)