Manchester City Transfer News: Martin Skrtel Will Definitely Stay at Liverpool
The 27-year-old Slovakian defender has signed a new long term contract with current club Liverpool.
The centre back had been involved in a series of rumours linking him with Manchester City since the start of the transfer window.
The Daily Express was amongst the first to report the story, suggesting that Mancini was hoping to use him as back up to Vincent Kompany and Joleon Lescott. Perhaps this is a reason why Skrtel was so unwilling to move to Etihad—why would he want to go from being the best at Liverpool to third at Manchester City in the prime years of his career?
The signing of the contract is a clear sign of loyalty to a club Skrtel signed four years ago and emphasises the trust key players have in Brendan Rodgers.
Shortly after being appointed manager, the Northern Irishman vowed to keep hold of his star defender, commenting:
"Martin has been fantastic. He seems happy and contented. He has fitted into my plans and ideas.
I will fight as hard as I can to keep the players that I want here and Martin is one of them." (The Mirror)
Despite attracting the interest of Manchester City, and suffering a disappointing eighth place finish last campaign, Skrtel says he was never tempted by a move to the blue side of Manchester.
"After last season there was a lot of talk about my future, but the first priority for me was always to sign a new deal with Liverpool," Skrtel said.
"I have been here almost four-and-a-half years and I have enjoyed that time here—myself and also my family—so there were no questions about whether to stay or to leave," he said.
"I think we can start to make history and I want to be a part of that history.
The extension to Skrtel’s deal all but confirms that Liverpool will hold onto their defensive pairing. Earlier this week Roberto Mancini conceded that his team will “probably not” sign the Denmark international. (ESPN)
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?