Martin Samuel in the Times:
‘It is summer. Manchester United are preparing to head east for a lucrative pre-season tour. Rio Ferdinand refuses to go. He has a conversation with David Gill, the chief executive, and explains that he wants to leave. He repeats his demand to Sir Alex Ferguson, the manager, after which he submits an unusual transfer request, one that does not only ask to be released from his contract but actually names his chosen destination: Chelsea.
‘The club is rife with rumour, including one that suggests that Chelsea’s paperwork for the transfer has been prepared and shown to the player. Within days, with United in an impossible position, Ferdinand signs for Chelsea. What do you think United’s reaction would be to the knowledge that another club, or its representative, had blatantly negotiated with one of their contracted players to the extent that there was no option left but to sell?
‘Maybe we should ask Leeds United. After all, this fantasy is based on real events surrounding the departure of Ferdinand from Elland Road to Old Trafford in July 2002. The time between the clubs reaching agreement on a transfer worth £29.1 million and Ferdinand becoming the most expensive defender in the world was measured in hours, not days. It takes longer to buy a sofa at John Lewis. Even Peter Ridsdale, then the Leeds chairman, archly observed that the two parties seemed to have remarkably little left to discuss; then again, he had seen the transfer request.
‘For United to embroil Chelsea, Peter Kenyon, their chief executive, or Pini Zahavi, their “fixer”, in a row about transfer ethics over Ferdinand would be the greatest waste of time of all. If the FA Premier League were to receive a complaint, it should proceed with an investigation only on condition that the hearing is televised. Everybody says there is no great comedy on the box these days.
‘What would the Premier League make, for instance, of the mess surrounding David Bellion’s transfer from Sunderland to Manchester United, which ended with the selling club receiving an inflated fee on the condition that they stayed quiet?
‘Kenyon was a senior United employee at the time, which suggests endorsement of a certain dark modus operandi, but the description of United’s behaviour by Bob Murray, the Sunderland chairman, as “despicable, shabby and arrogant, breaking every rule in the book whether written or ethical”, hardly reflects well on the club, either. It was Murray’s contention, made before he was silenced by a £3 million pre-tribunal payment, that United had unsettled the player during a season that ended with Sunderland relegated. Certainly, Bellion was tied to Elite Management, the company that employed Ferguson’s son, Jason, and for much of the season the player was a problem, often returning to France without explanation.
‘Then there was the move of Louis Saha from Fulham, during which Chris Coleman, the Fulham manager, called Ferguson a bully, or the appearance of Arjen Robben, 19 at the time, on a guided tour of United’s training ground, which so infuriated PSV Eindhoven, his club, that they sold him to Chelsea.
‘Also it takes two to tango, or in this case three, and of the people at the meeting with Ferdinand, two thirds are either employed by United or in bed with them. Zahavi is a prime mover at Chelsea these days, but in his spare time he makes regular guest appearances for other clubs, including United. The most recent accounts show that he was paid £500,000 to smooth Juan Sebastian Veron’s passage to — you’ve guessed it — Stamford Bridge. He was also the middleman when Ferdinand transferred from Leeds.
‘So United know how Zahavi works: sometimes it suits them and sometimes it does not. Far from running crying to the Premier League, this would seem to fit neatly into the hard man’s maxim that those dishing it out should be able to take it, too.
‘Some think that the public nature of the Ferdinand meeting places it above suspicion, but this depends on Kenyon’s taste for cunning. A cynic might argue it was only the clandestine nature of the talks with Cole that put Chelsea in the dock. Had they met in public, all parties could have claimed pure coincidence, as Kenyon, Ferdinand and Zahavi have, and the Premier League would have had little choice but to accept the explanation.
‘So what if, despite all the denials, come summer, Ferdinand presents Manchester United with the same Hobson’s choice that he gave Leeds. Would he be the disloyal rogue many are suggesting? Yes, because United stood by him over his missed drugs test and deserve dedication as repayment.
‘Of course, if Chelsea were trying to lure Ferdinand illegally and had then lied about it, this would be another example of a powerful, rich club acting with flagrant disregard for the rulebook and eschewing ethical responsibility to further their own interests. Not that this is wholly unusual. As Manchester United might say: come and join us, come and join us.’