Carlos Tevez centre stage in Manchester United v Manchester City part two
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/matt_dickinson/article7002416.eceAccording to the Butterfly Effect, small, seemingly insignificant incidents can come to have a vast, unforeseen outcome; the flap of wings that ultimately causes a tornado.
Football now has its own parochial example. Gary Neville makes some sensible comments in a Maltese newspaper, The Times, and, before you know it, Manchester police are on riot alert, braced for mayhem at Old Trafford tomorrow night.
Carlos Tévez is in for a Welcome to Hell in the Carling Cup semi-final, second leg. United fans may even suspend their anti-Glazer protests to concentrate on the Argentine defector.
In Tévez’s world, he is the one with right on his side in this escalating feud: the man disrespected. It suits him to paint a picture of a footballer who would have died for United but, cast out, had no choice than to pack up his shooting boots and, like one of Clint Eastwood’s wandering gunslingers, head to the next town.
That is one side of the story, but an entirely self-serving one also peddled by Kia Joorabchian, his representative. Self-serving because it deflects from the fact that the move may have been inspired by other motives, such as the pot of gold on the other side of Manchester.
That is not a moral judgment. Tévez would not be the first person to grab a large pay rise and his “owners”, the mysterious rights-holders, would not have been the first sellers to seek the biggest deal. But all this posturing from Tévez and his people about rights and wrongs, about fair treatment, about respect, demands that we also consider some inconvenient facts.
Facts such as United taking a call last June saying that Tévez would not be returning to Old Trafford even though the club, after taking time to weigh all their options, had offered the contracted asking price.
As United confirmed in a formal statement at the time, they had “agreed to pay the option price of £25.5 million and offered Carlos a five-year contract which would have made him one of its highest-paid players.
“
Disappointingly, however, his advisers informed the club that, despite the success he has enjoyed during one of the club’s most successful periods,
he does not wish to continue playing for Manchester United.”
The fact also, as reported in this newspaper, that the fee eventually paid by City was £47 million, an eye-boggling figure initially contested by Joorabchian but which has yet to draw a murmur of comment by City. City also ended up forking out a salary of £7 million, which was more than United were willing to countenance.
These are not mere details but entirely central to the story when we consider Tévez’s cocked ears to the United board last week and the yap-yap gestures to Neville.
Because
they demolish the idea that Tévez has a basis for his grudge.
They expose that he is not a rebel with a cause. They reveal that he is just a footballer for whom City were willing to pay spectacularly over the odds, making him among the top five most expensive players in the history of the game, in the company of Zinédine Zidane and Kaká. United offered less to keep him — but it was hardly treating the striker like a piece of meat, or showing him disrespect, when they stopped the bidding at £25.5 million.
And so to Neville, who knew, like everyone else at Old Trafford, that Tévez moved for more than £40 million last summer rather than the widely reported £25.5 million. That knowledge set the entire context for his remarks in the Maltese Times, even though he did not go into figures.
Asked a perfectly reasonable question by a reader — “was it a mistake to let Tévez leave United?” — he gave a perfectly reasoned answer. “The manager over the years has made many decisions with regard to players coming and going and he has almost always been proved correct,” he said.
“I can’t disagree with his decision on Tévez. He was a good player for us, but if the financial demands are too big [note no mention of how big], then that’s just the way it goes. Other good players have left this club in the past; it’s not the first time it’s happened.”
In this supposedly incendiary column, he also noted that City were not to be taken lightly, least of all Tévez. “They definitely have quality in forward positions,” it read. “Craig Bellamy has been playing well, as have Martin Petrov and Carlos Tévez, who was excellent against Wolves. City impressed me in that game.” Hardly gobby, hardly gloating. Not exactly taunting, either.
Neville was giving a straight answer to a straight question, as, more than most footballers, he has tried to do throughout his career.
It is a career that is heading towards its twilight and one that will be remembered, certainly by fans of United and England, for its unswerving dedication. Neville is a player who made the very best of himself and his abilities.
A combative nature has also brought its more abrasive moments — and we can add the raised digit of last week to the list — but take it from me, take it from anyone in the game, Neville needs no lectures on class and respect from Joorabchian.
It leaves us heading to Old Trafford tomorrow for fireworks and no doubt another twist in a story that has more complexities than people have allowed for. Will Tévez prove United wrong to have got rid of him (even though they didn’t)? Will his former club have the last laugh (even though they could probably do with another forward, just not one priced the same as Kaká)?
They are judgments that need weighing up with all the information to hand, not some muddled notion that the player was forced anywhere against his will. Victimhood does not sit well with Tévez or his former owners, whose take from his moves exceeded £60 million on an original £14 million investment.
Tévez made his bed at City, complete with the £7 million-a-year cushion. We must assume that he is happy to lie in it, however hostile the reception as he ventures back.
