• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

rSol

Another one of those 'he's obviously an odd bloke so trying not to hold that against him'...I find that the facts are plenty enough to show what an arse he was over this/is about us. FWIW I had a friend in the squad at the time and he gave no indication he was going to Arsenal to the dressing room. None.
 
I can’t remember what it was called, but for a while back then there was a late night midweek football focus style program on BBC.

He was interviewed on there saying he would stay.

He’d also told Rebrov he was staying when he was over discussing his move.

People change their minds, fair enough, but he’s trying to rewrite history now.

We would have sold him to Italy for good money had he been honest about his intentions.
 
Have just read his fairy story, haven’t seen or heard the podcast. It’s not really plausible is it? 24 years and this is his latest justification for the biggest betrayal in football history. The clam keeps whinging about his treatment and then does an ad making light of the incident and a podcast where he flimflams looking for sympathy.

He’s a deeply unpleasant looper. Jelly and ice cream…
 
So...deep breath...I listened to the Neville & co podcast.

I have to say I had either forgotten about (or was unaware of) the whole Derby steward lawsuit thing. I don't remember my mate mentioning it. And I genuinely don't remember reading about it at the time. So I looked back at the historical reports and they were fleeting, paragraph mentions.

I remember Sugar at the time. He was definitely cheap, and he was also quite bitter about players and their self-perceptions when it came to value. His bust-up with Sheringham before Teddy went to Man Utd initially was big, and my mate in the squad did tell me how Mabbutt was told he'd have to pay for loads of stuff, including rental of the corner flags (!!!), at his own testimonial match.

If Campbell felt he was being strung along during the legal proceedings (he says lawyers knew it was a flimflam case early doors because they had the steward's hopsital admission record which showed he injured himself earlier in the day) as some sort of leverage versus contract negotiations, then that is poor form. If he did look at how players such as Mabbutt were treated by our heirarchy, then I can see how it would've contributed to his not signing a new deal.

Do I forgive him the move there or the way it happened? No. No way. I seem to remember him letting us feel that negotiations were going on and that he was 'hopeful' he'd be signing a new deal. Of course, the writing was on the wall once it went into January, as we know now that means a player is going. Back then, I believe his was the first high-profile example of its kind, and as such no-one knew the signs.

Do I understand better why he did it? Yes, a little better. Because taking off my Spurs skin for a moment, the way Sugar and co treated players and the club generally was poor poor form, and honestly, I am amazed some of the players who stuck around did stick around. I think he'd have had a much easier time of it had he gone to, say, Barcelona, so I think it's hard to believe that he didn't know there'd be an extra 'f-uk u' in going to them, and for that I also cannot forgive him. But I can certainly move on, and I generally have.

I have to also add, his highly odd and curious way of communicating seems to strike against him. I find him grating to listen to, and sometimes hard to decipher too as he ends up in half-riddles. He also has this odd 'attraction' to things which amplify villainy. Bizarre. He is a person who it seems is happier when he's 'at war' with someone/something. Odd.

But I really gave this hour or so full attention, and ended up coming to the above conclusion.

Interested to discuss with others who have also watched it/listened to it.

In closing, what a sad thing it all is, because he is one of the best defenders we have ever had. I saw his debut against Chelsea, when he came on as a forward and scored!
 
Last edited:
He reminds me of my dead nan… on her last legs bless her she used to make up stuff to cover her back and excuse her own thoughts and actions and blame everyone else, but she was suffering from a form of dementia and was quite delusional.
 
Gazza said:
He reminds me of my dead nan… on her last legs bless her she used to make up stuff to cover her back and excuse her own thoughts and actions and blame everyone else, but she was suffering from a form of dementia and was quite delusional.
Click to expand...

Did she ever get as deranged as to say she was RSol ?
 
thfcsteff said:
So...deep breath...I listened to the Neville & co podcast.

I have to say I had either forgotten about (or was unaware of) the whole Derby steward lawsuit thing. I don't remember my mate mentioning it. And I genuinely don't remember reading about it at the time. So I looked back at the historical reports and they were fleeting, paragraph mentions.

I remember Sugar at the time. He was definitely cheap, and he was also quite bitter about players and their self-perceptions when it came to value. His bust-up with Sheringham before Teddy went to Man Utd initially was big, and my mate in the squad did tell me how Mabbutt was told he'd have to pay for loads of stuff, including rental of the corner flags (!!!), at his own testimonial match.

If Campbell felt he was being strung along during the legal proceedings (he says lawyers knew it was a flimflam case early doors because they had the steward's hopsital admission record which showed he injured himself earlier in the day) as some sort of leverage versus contract negotiations, then that is poor form. If he did look at how players such as Mabbutt were treated by our heirarchy, then I can see how it would've contributed to his not signing a new deal.

Do I forgive him the move there or the way it happened? No. No way. I seem to remember him letting us feel that negotiations were going on and that he was 'hopeful' he'd be signing a new deal. Of course, the writing was on the wall once it went into January, as we know now that means a player is going. Back then, I believe his was the first high-profile example of its kind, and as such no-one knew the signs.

Do I understand better why he did it? Yes, a little better. Because taking off my Spurs skin for a moment, the way Sugar and co treated players and the club generally was poor poor form, and honestly, I am amazed some of the players who stuck around did stick around. I think he'd have had a much easier time of it had he gone to, say, Barcelona, so I think it's hard to believe that he didn't know there'd be an extra 'f-uk u' in going to them, and for that I also cannot forgive him. But I can certainly move on, and I generally have.

I have to also add, his highly odd and curious way of communicating seems to strike against him. I find him grating to listen to, and sometimes hard to decipher too as he ends up in half-riddles. He also has this odd 'attraction' to things which amplify villainy. Bizarre. He is a person who it seems is happier when he's 'at war' with someone/something. Odd.

But I really gave this hour or so full attention, and ended up coming to the above conclusion.

Interested to discuss with others who have also watched it/listened to it.

In closing, what a sad thing it all is, because he is one of the best defenders we have ever had. I saw his debut against Chelsea, when he came on as a forward and scored!
Click to expand...
Being treated badly by suger totally excuses leaving on a free, and he would have had the pick of top clubs. It most certainly does not excuse lying about staying, and going to your arch rivals.
 
thfcsteff said:
So...deep breath...I listened to the Neville & co podcast.

I have to say I had either forgotten about (or was unaware of) the whole Derby steward lawsuit thing. I don't remember my mate mentioning it. And I genuinely don't remember reading about it at the time. So I looked back at the historical reports and they were fleeting, paragraph mentions.

I remember Sugar at the time. He was definitely cheap, and he was also quite bitter about players and their self-perceptions when it came to value. His bust-up with Sheringham before Teddy went to Man Utd initially was big, and my mate in the squad did tell me how Mabbutt was told he'd have to pay for loads of stuff, including rental of the corner flags (!!!), at his own testimonial match.

If Campbell felt he was being strung along during the legal proceedings (he says lawyers knew it was a flimflam case early doors because they had the steward's hopsital admission record which showed he injured himself earlier in the day) as some sort of leverage versus contract negotiations, then that is poor form. If he did look at how players such as Mabbutt were treated by our heirarchy, then I can see how it would've contributed to his not signing a new deal.

Do I forgive him the move there or the way it happened? No. No way. I seem to remember him letting us feel that negotiations were going on and that he was 'hopeful' he'd be signing a new deal. Of course, the writing was on the wall once it went into January, as we know now that means a player is going. Back then, I believe his was the first high-profile example of its kind, and as such no-one knew the signs.

Do I understand better why he did it? Yes, a little better. Because taking off my Spurs skin for a moment, the way Sugar and co treated players and the club generally was poor poor form, and honestly, I am amazed some of the players who stuck around did stick around. I think he'd have had a much easier time of it had he gone to, say, Barcelona, so I think it's hard to believe that he didn't know there'd be an extra 'f-uk u' in going to them, and for that I also cannot forgive him. But I can certainly move on, and I generally have.

I have to also add, his highly odd and curious way of communicating seems to strike against him. I find him grating to listen to, and sometimes hard to decipher too as he ends up in half-riddles. He also has this odd 'attraction' to things which amplify villainy. Bizarre. He is a person who it seems is happier when he's 'at war' with someone/something. Odd.

But I really gave this hour or so full attention, and ended up coming to the above conclusion.

Interested to discuss with others who have also watched it/listened to it.

In closing, what a sad thing it all is, because he is one of the best defenders we have ever had. I saw his debut against Chelsea, when he came on as a forward and scored!
Click to expand...

Thanks I had successful wiped that match from my memory.
 
Lemonade Money said:
Being treated badly by suger totally excuses leaving on a free, and he would have had the pick of top clubs. It most certainly does not excuse lying about staying, and going to your arch rivals.
Click to expand...

Boo hoo most staff get treated badly by their employers at sometime in their career, surprised he's not claiming its racism that he didn't get asked to play today.
 
thfcsteff said:
So...deep breath...I listened to the Neville & co podcast.

I have to say I had either forgotten about (or was unaware of) the whole Derby steward lawsuit thing. I don't remember my mate mentioning it. And I genuinely don't remember reading about it at the time. So I looked back at the historical reports and they were fleeting, paragraph mentions.

I remember Sugar at the time. He was definitely cheap, and he was also quite bitter about players and their self-perceptions when it came to value. His bust-up with Sheringham before Teddy went to Man Utd initially was big, and my mate in the squad did tell me how Mabbutt was told he'd have to pay for loads of stuff, including rental of the corner flags (!!!), at his own testimonial match.

If Campbell felt he was being strung along during the legal proceedings (he says lawyers knew it was a flimflam case early doors because they had the steward's hopsital admission record which showed he injured himself earlier in the day) as some sort of leverage versus contract negotiations, then that is poor form. If he did look at how players such as Mabbutt were treated by our heirarchy, then I can see how it would've contributed to his not signing a new deal.

Do I forgive him the move there or the way it happened? No. No way. I seem to remember him letting us feel that negotiations were going on and that he was 'hopeful' he'd be signing a new deal. Of course, the writing was on the wall once it went into January, as we know now that means a player is going. Back then, I believe his was the first high-profile example of its kind, and as such no-one knew the signs.

Do I understand better why he did it? Yes, a little better. Because taking off my Spurs skin for a moment, the way Sugar and co treated players and the club generally was poor poor form, and honestly, I am amazed some of the players who stuck around did stick around. I think he'd have had a much easier time of it had he gone to, say, Barcelona, so I think it's hard to believe that he didn't know there'd be an extra 'f-uk u' in going to them, and for that I also cannot forgive him. But I can certainly move on, and I generally have.

I have to also add, his highly odd and curious way of communicating seems to strike against him. I find him grating to listen to, and sometimes hard to decipher too as he ends up in half-riddles. He also has this odd 'attraction' to things which amplify villainy. Bizarre. He is a person who it seems is happier when he's 'at war' with someone/something. Odd.

But I really gave this hour or so full attention, and ended up coming to the above conclusion.

Interested to discuss with others who have also watched it/listened to it.

In closing, what a sad thing it all is, because he is one of the best defenders we have ever had. I saw his debut against Chelsea, when he came on as a forward and scored!
Click to expand...
I hate him so my opinion is probably coloured by that.

But the insinuation that a club would try and “frame a player” (his words) to use in contract negotiations is mental. At one point, he says that’s his assumption. Then later he passes it off as fact. He was also asked specifically what the “crap deal” he was offered was and he wouldn’t answer straight. By all accounts, he was offered a record deal and even if the club were trying to hang him out to dry, he had his choice of other clubs. The incident wouldn’t have really damaged his market value even if he was guilty. It makes absolutely no sense and the silence that greeted the story at times said to me that the hosts were skeptical.

It also doesn’t explain why, for much of his last season, he spoke as if he was staying.

He’s a lying prick in my book. Lowest of the low. Not only did he betray us in the worst possible way, he’s been raking it up recently and then making up these fairy stories to excuse himself.
 
DeanoAustin said:
I hate him so my opinion is probably coloured by that.

But the insinuation that a club would try and “frame a player” (his words) to use in contract negotiations is mental. At one point, he says that’s his assumption. Then later he passes it off as fact. He was also asked specifically what the “crap deal” he was offered was and he wouldn’t answer straight. By all accounts, he was offered a record deal and even if the club were trying to hang him out to dry, he had his choice of other clubs. The incident wouldn’t have really damaged his market value even if he was guilty. It makes absolutely no sense and the silence that greeted the story at times said to me that the hosts were skeptical.

It also doesn’t explain why, for much of his last season, he spoke as if he was staying.

He’s a lying prick in my book. Lowest of the low. Not only did he betray us in the worst possible way, he’s been raking it up recently and then making up these fairy stories to excuse himself.
Click to expand...

Understood, and I also despise what he did by making that move. I just thought -in my ever-advancing years!- that sitting back and listening to him talk about it one more time was an interesting exercise, and I did find myself partially seeing his POV with regards to the era and regime. Where it doesn't line up is in his statements during that time, that I agree, however I think it is equally fair to say that Sugar was a d-ick, he did mistreat/disrespect many players and people, and that he was absolutely not interested in doing what was right for the football side, only the business.

I disagree that he is making up fairy stories. I think he genuinely believes he was short-changed/not looked after. What I'd love to see him do is admit that it was an especially egregious move to make. He's never acknowledged that. He seems to be someone who doesn't let a grudge go, or wipe a chip from his shoulder, instead enjoying the weight of either/both. A sad way to be. I don't want to be Sol.
 
thfcsteff said:
Understood, and I also despise what he did by making that move. I just thought -in my ever-advancing years!- that sitting back and listening to him talk about it one more time was an interesting exercise, and I did find myself partially seeing his POV with regards to the era and regime. Where it doesn't line up is in his statements during that time, that I agree, however I think it is equally fair to say that Sugar was a d-ick, he did mistreat/disrespect many players and people, and that he was absolutely not interested in doing what was right for the football side, only the business.

I disagree that he is making up fairy stories. I think he genuinely believes he was short-changed/not looked after. What I'd love to see him do is admit that it was an especially egregious move to make. He's never acknowledged that. He seems to be someone who doesn't let a grudge go, or wipe a chip from his shoulder, instead enjoying the weight of either/both. A sad way to be. I don't want to be Sol.
Click to expand...
Sugar was a dingdong. Some of the stuff with Mabbutt is unforgivable given what he gave to our club. And there is obviously lots of other stuff from around that time.

In a million years, I would not have begrudged Sol Campbell a move from Tottenham at that time. He was too good to play for that team. I wouldn't have even begrudged him going on a free and I'd have wished him all the best. This was never about him leaving our club. Where he went and how he did it...mind boggling.

He still doesn't even accept the gravity of the move. When Neville said "the most controversial move in history", he acted shocked. Then Neville rowed back and agreed that maybe Figo to Madrid was more contentious (I don't agree because Figo didn't go for free - there was a fee paid when his release clause was triggered) and Campbell still didn't really want to accept the controversy around his move. He's deluded.
 
Bullet said:
He was on a free; he could have gone to Leeds Saudi Sportswashing Machine MNU LIV Blackburn or abroad.
Not there.
NEVER there.
Judas.
Click to expand...

I might be misremembering, it may have Milan, but either them or (I think) Juve were desperate for him.

Why would you miss the chance to play for either of them.
 
Baleforce said:
I might be misremembering, it may have Milan, but either them or (I think) Juve were desperate for him.

Why would you miss the chance to play for either of them.
Click to expand...

No, you're right on Milan. He said if they hadn't lost Ronaldo he'd have gone there. Well, he says that but who knows...
 
DeanoAustin said:
Sugar was a dingdong. Some of the stuff with Mabbutt is unforgivable given what he gave to our club. And there is obviously lots of other stuff from around that time.

In a million years, I would not have begrudged Sol Campbell a move from Tottenham at that time. He was too good to play for that team. I wouldn't have even begrudged him going on a free and I'd have wished him all the best. This was never about him leaving our club. Where he went and how he did it...mind boggling.

He still doesn't even accept the gravity of the move. When Neville said "the most controversial move in history", he acted shocked. Then Neville rowed back and agreed that maybe Figo to Madrid was more contentious (I don't agree because Figo didn't go for free - there was a fee paid when his release clause was triggered) and Campbell still didn't really want to accept the controversy around his move. He's deluded.
Click to expand...
Not only did he go *there*,, but he was *exactly* what they needed at the time. Rock solid, lightning fast, great vision and a good leader of defense, and never injured. I don't think so many would have reacted so strongly had he been a forward, as he would have been more or less superfluous over there. Without a doubt he helped cement the second half of their best run in relevant history. In no reality, even alternative, would they have been the invincibles without him.
 
There's a good article from the Athletic on it, which covers his flirting with European clubs:

Inter had finished fifth in Serie A and were about to lose Laurent Blanc to Manchester United. They invited Campbell out to Milan and, having met up with his friend Dean Gordon, the Middlesbrough defender, he stopped off in Monaco en route before making the four-hour drive across the border into northern Italy. He was late for the meeting at Inter’s administrative offices, the pair having been perplexed by the city’s maze of streets, but owner Massimo Morrati and sporting director Giuliano Terraneo seemed unperturbed. There was a tour of Stadio Giuseppe Meazza in San Siro and a trip out to the training ground in Como, some 30 miles from the city. The latter, built in 1961, had rather aged, but Terraneo was still convinced the player had been impressed and would be joining.

An excitable Morrati declared “Campbell is ours” in the local press.

Barcelona had only secured fourth place and qualification for the Champions League on the final day of the La Liga season, courtesy of Rivaldo’s outrageous bicycle kick against Valencia. The rumour mill placed Campbell at the Nou Camp that night, enjoying his future employers’ hospitality. Their delegation did meet Andrew in Catalonia. The contract offer was eye-watering and, when a positive response was not immediately forthcoming, subsequently increased by a further 50 per cent.

Either move offered a simpler solution than going to Arsenal. But neither felt right.
Click to expand...

There's also a whole lot of absolute brick from Sky Andrew trying to justify it.

www.nytimes.com

The real story of football’s transfers – Campbell leaves Spurs for Arsenal

It is one of the most bitter deals in English football history. Here is how Sol Campbell left Tottenham to sign for Arsenal - for free
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back