Steven Gerrard and Liverpool Agree on Contract Extension
Steven Gerrard is among the last of a dying breed, and his hopes of making yet more history with Liverpool have been given a major boost, as the club’s official website announced that the veteran had signed a contract extension running until June 2015.
With over 600 appearances for the Reds already to his name, Gerrard’s helping hand could prove critical if the club is to be restored to its former glory within that time frame, with his leadership posing of crucial importance.
Having joined the Liverpool academy at the age of nine, Gerrard has spent his entire career on Merseyside, a growing rarity among players at the elite level.
Upon signing his new deal, Gerrard stated, via the club's website:
I've been here that long and so to extend, it's a big day for me and I'm really happy for myself and my family. It's great news.
It lets me know the club thinks an awful lot of me and want me here.
I'm glad it's all done and it's happened at the right time before the season, so I can just focus on playing as well as I can.
Like Ryan Giggs and Paul Scholes at Manchester United, the 33-year-old’s name will be etched into Liverpool folklore all the more because of the length of time that he’s remained at Anfield.
Does Gerrard deserve his new deal?
One Champions League crown, two FA Cups, three League Cups, a UEFA Cup and two Charity Shields fill a trophy cabinet to envy for most players—even at the highest standard.
That’s the list of silverware “Stevie G” has helped win for his boyhood club, all of which may have arguably been impossible without his contributions.
Gerrard scored 10 goals and had 11 assists last season, so Liverpool’s offer isn’t solely for sentiment either, as it’s clear the midfielder still has what it takes to cut it at the top.
He's a one-club man until the end—the Gerrard era will live on for at least two more years in front of the Kop crowd.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?