Rafael Benitez is not the only one who has grown exasperated by continued discussion of Frank Lampards future, but one point merits repetition. Chelseas decision to release him cannot be purely economic, as the clubs contradictory treatment of his team-mate Florent Malouda demonstrates.
Like many politicians football clubs often seek to have it both ways, claiming to be acting out of principle when it suits them, yet equally content that their hands have been forced by economic circumstances when it does not. Chelseas contrasting approach to Lampard and Malouda represent a case in point.
It is not widely known, but after winning the Champions League and before heading to the European Championship last summer Malouda asked to be released from the final year of his contract at Chelsea to pursue the final years of his career elsewhere.
The France international stated that he did not want a penny of the money owed to him, thus potentially saving £5million to a club eager to cut their wage-bill, but Chelsea refused.
Malouda was told that he would not be permitted to leave for free, and that the club wanted a fee of £10m, which as he pointed out seemed somewhat unrealistic for a 32-year-old in the final year of his contract, particularly given Chelsea had only paid £13.5m for him six years earlier.
Intriguingly these negotiations were conducted by Marina Granovskaia, Roman Abramovichs PA, who is increasingly influential at Stamford Bridge.
Malouda responded that in the light of the clubs excessive demands he would happily see out the final year of his contract, since which Chelsea have made little effort to shift him.
He is highly unlikely to move on during this month either, not due to greed or a lack of ambition, but because his children are settled in London schools and he is concentrating on getting as fit as possible in the hope of finding a new club in the summer. A 12-month pre-season, the best of my life, is how he has described his current activities.
Malouda has not been seen since Euro 2012, with Chelsea banishing him to the reserves, hardly a pragmatic response to a delicate contractual stand-off with a player who helped them to win the Champions League, particularly as their squad has been short of midfield players all season.
Despite this shortage, which was noted by Rafael Benitez as soon as he took the job in November, there is no way back for Malouda, with the club sticking with the line that he will not be called upon and that no players will be permitted to leave for free.
His exile is such, that when asked recently whether the arrival of Benitez could make a difference, Malouda replied that he had not even met the Spaniard.
Chelsea have continued to pay him handsomely however, despite coming nowhere near kicking a ball competitively, an approach which jars with clubs supposed economy drive.
If Chelsea are willing to pay Malouda £100,00-a-week to do nothing then Lampards £150,000-a-week wage demands are something of a bargain.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Marc Overmars
