Aston Villa player ban puts Chelsea’s backing of Terry and Drogba in a new light
If you’re a football player and you need some extra cash, selling the tickets allotted to you by your football club is a risky business. Selling it on a public platform such as Facebook, thus making it ridiculously easy for the club to find it, is foolishness.
And that’s how Aston Villa described Nathan Baker’s action after the youngster sold his five tickets for the Carling Cup final against Manchester United for £200 each on Facebook.
Nathan Baker is currently on loan at Lincoln City, and is hardly earning the six-figure weekly salary that would cause you to wonder why he needs to raise cash through other means. The kid is just 18 and probably figured it would be a nice way to earn some extra cash on the side for a game he wasn’t going to take anyone to in the first place.
Fair enough. This went against club policy (the tickets were for friends and family only) and as a result Villa have punished Baker by withdrawing his tickets and banning him from the Wembley final.
An Aston Villa spokesman had the following to say:
“The club is saddened that Nathan has been so foolish. All of the players were made aware that tickets for the Carling Cup final are available for their own use only and, following this incident, the message has been repeated to them. It shouldn’t be forgotten, however, that Nathan is just 18 years old and he has a lot to learn. His actions were naive and he is extremely embarrassed and regretful at having let down himself, the club and Aston Villa fans.”
Taken in context of what passes for ‘embarrassing and regretful behaviour’ these days, an 18-year-old youth player selling tickets is hardly the same as sleeping with your team-mate’s wife, but Baker was apologetic and sent out the right PR message even though, IMO, he didn’t need to.
Nathan Baker:
“I wish to apologise unreservedly to the fans for my actions. I appreciate it is a privilege to be part of Aston Villa Football Club and one day I hope to play in the first team, but I understand that my behaviour off the pitch must speak as loudly as my actions on the pitch.
I have been informed by the club that I will no longer be receiving any tickets for the Carling Cup final and, while I will be sorry not to be able to cheer Aston Villa on at Wembley, I understand and appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to have these tickets given my actions.”
Keep in mind that this is the level of discipline and respect to the club that is expected of a young player out on loan who has yet to see first-team action. The bar would be incredibly high for a first-team, a senior member of the squad, the captain.
Seen in isolation Baker’s treatment is a strict but fair decision by Aston Villa Football Club where players are expected to respect the club through their actions on and off the pitch.
Seen in context with Chelsea FC – and here I’m not contrasting the behaviour of Terry and Baker but the position / actions of the two clubs in question – Aston Villa have either been draconian or Chelsea find it acceptable to accommodate players who will drag the club’s name in mud as long as they give them a chance of success. And before you complain that this is just about Terry, this applies to Drogba’s and Ballack’s antics last year as well.
Topics: Aston Villa, Chelsea, English Premier League, Features, Off The Record
Football News 24/7
Hear, hear. Well done Villa – a fine club, with a fine tradition. Honesty and respect are bywords – if only the Sky 4 were the same.
February 4th, 2010 @ 17:21I think you are right to highlight the discrepency between the approach of the two clubs. I think my club dealt with the situation well.
The truth is though that whilst John Terry appears to be guilty of a moral failing and is rightly castigated for it, Ashley Cole is declared a criminal for driving his lamborghini at an insane 104mph on a 50mph limit stretch of the A3 and it is hardly mentioned. He recieved a paltry £1000 fine and 4 month ban, which he intends to appeal against.
Anyone who knows this stretch of road will recognise that driving at that type of speed is verging on the criminally insane.
Of the 3 players “crimes”, I find Cole’s by far the worst.
February 4th, 2010 @ 17:24Your right about the inability to contrast the supposed offences of the four players in question.
February 4th, 2010 @ 19:12I’m not sure exactly what your talking about regarding Drogba and Ballack specifically, but I assume it’s regarding the farce that was the Barcelona Semi-Final.
If you remember Drogba was given punishment of a 6 game, suspended to four game European ban for his actions.
And the question regarding John Terry is still ongoing. Chelsea have retained his position in the club because they believe his personal life shouldn’t effect his professional playing career. What he did wasn’t against the ‘club policy’.
I’m not entirely sure what this article is trying to say.
Excellent article. A footballers personal life does affect his professional life when his personal life becomes scandalous. He should have the arm band taken and at least give it up himself to show some acceptance of wrong doing!
February 4th, 2010 @ 19:52Joe,
There were two points:
1. I’d like to see clubs punish their players instead of backing them when they bring the club’s name into disrepute. The argument has been made elsewhere as well and I’ll restate it – as a captain and public representative your personal life becomes open to public consumption and has a direct bearing on your and your club’s reputation. You and I may not like it, but that’s how the world is. Until it changes, we deal with it instead of doing a Wenger.
2. I don’t think a player of higher standing than Baker (i.e. a first-team player) would have been dealt with the same way even at Aston Villa, so the second, albeit minor, point was that Baker was made an example by the club because they could push him around.
The main point was still #1.
February 4th, 2010 @ 20:14I find myself increasingly envious of Aston Villa. A fine manager, a stable minded football supporting owner, a decent and developing squad- and always a fair and right hand when it comes to dealing with its players/employees. I have no doubt if Milner had committed anything so closely resembling Terry’s transgression (tho from all reports he seems one of the most well adjusted and down to earth footballers), he would have been dealt with quickly and swiftly. Stood down from the squad and fined a chunk of his sizeable earnings. Terry, the highest earner in the League, has people in all corners from White Van Men to ex-players, defending him from an indefensible position. No one seems to have the balls to say- “This man has proved that he may be a fine footballer, but a poor example of a man and not worthy to lead his team”.
February 4th, 2010 @ 22:37Jesus!! Come on! I am a Villa home and away fan. Miss 3 of 4 games a season, so I am Villa through and through and have been for too many years now; trust me.
However I do think this article is stretching a point. Of course Terry is a total moral disaster. So what? If Milner of Young were to behave so appallingly I’d be disappointed but if they were dropped because of it I’d be disgusted.
And as for Nathan Baker? Who? He may never play for the first team. To compare him with Terry’s importance to Chelsea is a complete joke.
February 5th, 2010 @ 00:47The thing is what Baker did was against official club policy.
Having affairs with your teammates girlfriends is not.
February 5th, 2010 @ 01:20Fair point
February 5th, 2010 @ 09:34“The thing is what Baker did was against official club policy.
Having affairs with your teammates girlfriends is not.”
Now you tell me! If only I’d known that when I was playing……..our centre-forward’s missus was gorgeous!
Bugger!!!!
February 5th, 2010 @ 11:31