The worst thing Henderson has done is that he held insincere public positions which he sold out on.

He’s as much or as little of a bigot for this as Ronaldo, Kante, Firmino, et al are. Or anyone who plays for PSG or Newcastle or Man City. Which is to say, not at all.

How this is worse in your head to physically assaulting someone and being in with organised crime is just a mark of how terminally online you are.

But Henderson hasn’t done ‘A’. He’s just sold out to people who do ‘A’.

Whereas Gerrard has done ‘B’. Which is bad regardless of whether or not he’s publicly denounced it previously. Because organised crime and physically attacking people is bad by default.

That’s the comparison. Gerrard’s reputation is intact because barely anyone gives a shit about the moral dimension of his character. By this same measure, Henderson’s will be fine also.

Your logic is astoundingly moronic. It’s like saying Adam Johnson never spoke out against pumping kids so doesn’t belong in the same conversation as Henderson.

The comparison holds, Gerrard’s reputation is fine despite his ties to organised crime and his own historic offence(s).

Henderson’s hypocrisy vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia does not outweigh that in most people’s estimation.

And if you think insincerely milking a bit of positive PR is worse than assaulting someone, then you need to get out more.

I would have stayed at Liverpool and made do with what I was earning there.

Not for any moral reasons - I just hate hot climates.

Gerrard only physically assaulted someone and sucks up to organised crime.

Rich guy insincerely takes up moral/political stance which is PR friendly, commercially safe, and unradical.

Tale as old as time.

It’s a lot more okay because it indicates his intentions are more likely to boost his local team of which he was presumable a lifelong fan.

It’s a far cry from Abramovich using Chelsea to shore up his political and personal security, or the UAE using Man City as a sportswashing vessel to for PR gain for their theocratic police state.

I’m not pissed about teams with rich backers spending more money. I’m pissed about what interests are being furthered by football clubs being used as cynical political tools.

Even if we agree that he was offside (and I genuinely didn’t see if he was or not from the briefest of replays once UEFA made their minds up 5 minutes later that it was offside) - the ref signalled for a foul, so mechanically the goal was wrongly disallowed.

In that it was disallowed in an incorrect way. Which is pretty piss poor officiating.

Blackburn’s benefactor was a guy born in Blackburn, who made his money with a business based 5 miles from Ewood Park.

There’s a huge difference between this and what Man City, PSG, et al are doing.