Vedran-10;2360248 said:All of you who don't follow Barca don't really know what you're talking about.
Saviola wasn't mistreated. He came during that idiot Gaspart, he got a fat salary that he didn't deserve, and so did most on the team. We were in debt, so a new financial policy had to be established. That included smaller salaries, and most players accepted them. For some players it didn't matter because they weren't on high salaries anyway, but Saviola was one of those heavily overpaid players whom we needed to accept smaller contracts in order to help the club recover. He didn't want to do it because he loves money too much. I don't know why Rijkaard never liked him, but it doesn't really matter. The point is, we wanted to get rid of him because he didn't satisfy the criteria. The manager didn't want him and that isn't bad treatment, it's a decision made by the man who runs the team. Saviola played before Rijkaard came, and if he was really as good as some of you are saying, he'd be playing for us now. Some players kept their place, but Saviola didn't. This isn't Rijkaard's fault if he doesn't seem to think Saviola is good enough.
We offered him an exit many times, but he never wanted to leave, because the salary was too good. All of you should know that this player only cares about money. He'd rather not play and get a fat salary than play and get less money. That's not something a good footballer player who loves his job would choose. But Saviola did, and it's disgusting how someone can care about money so much despite already being rich.
So don't fool yourself by thinking he wanted to be loyal or an icon or whatever. He was in Barca because of money, he was still on his Gaspart contract and it was too much cash to turn down. He knew he wouldn't play because the manager didn't want him. Rijkaard doesn't value saviola, he doesn't think he's good enough and he certainly doesn't think he should be getting all that money. Saviola was aware of this, and he still decided to stay because the contract obided us to pay him every week.
saviola was promised a new offer when he went out on loan, he was promised a chance. The former was fulfilled by offering him a financially weaker deal that he rejected. If he really wanted to become an icon, he would have stayed despite getting less money. The latter was fulfilled by actually giving him a number in the team last season. He had his chances and he didn't satisfy.
Saviola didn't succeed here and he was heavily overpaid, so we wanted to sell him. He didn't want to leave so we allowed him to play another season with us. He didn't do anything (just like he didn't do anything before that), so we decided not to renew someone who is nothing special and wants too much money.
And please, don't:
- compare saviola to Messi, because it's insulting to the great Leo. He's much better than saviola will ever be, there's no comparison and only a Madridista can put them in the same sentence. Ridiculous.
- compare saviola to Eto'o. Eto'o really was mistreated in Madrid, he wasn't given a chance to succeed, but rather sent out on loans and played for Madrid B. It's only normal that a player of his calibre decided not to go on loans anymore. He's one of the best in the world. Saviola, on the other hand, got a few chances, failed every time, and still wouldn't leave.
It's ridiculous to compare either one with saviola, because they are a world apart.
----------
Gabi Milito!!!
hehe. Fantastic. That's proper transfer business.
good read there, Zka.......woot!!
