THE neighbour was pointing out how he had amassed his fortune. “I was in oil for years,” he said.

“I am guessing you were a sardine or a very posh chip,” I replied. My attempt at humour failed. The regular reader will not be surprised.

But my neighbour’s satisfaction at having spent his working life in one industry brought me to a meditation on Francesco Totti. An obvious link, obviously. The point is that Signore Totti, who will be 39, next month is starting the season with Roma as he has done since 1992. His longevity is enhanced by joining Roma as a kid in 1989. He has thus been on the books of the club for 26 years. This is three years longer than Neymar has been on the planet and just a mere year shorter than the time taken to compile the Chilcot Report.

But, most impressively, Totti is a one-club man. They used to be as common as flies at the sewage workers in-house summer picnic. They are now as rare as a Labour MP in Glasgow. As the transfer window slams shut/closes/doesn’t do anything because it isn’t actually a window, the matter of footballers and movement to another club is a matter of so much interest that people get into such a tizzy that one suspects they have scoffed a box of amphetamines thinking they were Smarties. And who of us have not?

But the transfer market has become clouded with delusions of loyalty that strangely only apply to the players. The one-club players of the past did not stay exclusively at the clubs because of loyalty, they stayed because the clubs would not sell them and held their registration. Many also stayed because the money on offer elsewhere was not that much better than where they were. Here is a case: the Lisbon Lions left Celtic when it suited Celtic, in particular Mr Stein. Many stayed for years after the 1967 triumph yet they were indisputably great players who could have performed for any club in Europe.

Now, in 2015, a player who shows any promise will not stay at Celtic or, indeed, in leagues in Portugal, Belgium or the Netherlands. It means Anderlecht, Ajax, Benfica or whoever cannot build teams. It means the teams in the big leagues have the big players and will win the big prizes. This is the way that capitalism – through the infusion of cash in huge television deals – and it would be as pointless to protest at this reality as it would be to tell John Chilcot to hurry up because there is a good documentary on BBC4 at 9pm.

But instead of railing at the forces of commerce, the fan of the club losing the player is encouraged to accuse the departing star of disloyalty. Most supporters, though, are too wise for any of that nonsense. They know, for example, than Virgil Van Dijk came from Groningen and was always headed beyond Glasgow. They accept that John Stones came from Barnsley and wants more than is offered at Everton. This is the way of the modern football world and the sensible fan has adjusted to it.

There is a twist, though. The celebrity ex-footballer weighs in with a nonsense that has been untouched by his previous close encounters with the reality of the game. This can be called Stay at X for Another Year to Learn His Trade argument. This is so much pith that it is accepted as a sample as the urology clinic. My first sighting of this was when Liam Miller, a Celtic player, decided to go to Manchester United. He was not successful in Manchester and his career plummeted to such an extent that he came back to Scotland. But what was he supposed to do when Fergie came calling?

“Sorry, Alex, thanks for the offer but I want to learn my trade for another year. I know I could get injured, I know my form could dip, I also know that you may not even want me in another year and that pot of cash could disappear faster than Alex Salmond at a surprise party for Nick Robinson. But I want to stay and learn my trade.”

The most natural process in football is the best players going to the biggest clubs. The most painful realisation for the fan is that his club is not part of that hierarchy. Much of the outrage at Raheem Sterling was voiced by ex-Liverpool players who will not accept the blatantly obvious proposition that Sterling will not only earn more at Manchester City but also win more on the field. Stones, too, fancies Chelsea not only because of the money – a reasonable incentive in any case – but also because he will play in the Champions League, maybe win the odd medal or two.

Totti, in contrast, has stayed with Roma. He is a fan of the club and his loyalty has been praiseworthy. But it has been rewarded with a Serie A title, a coupla Coppa D’Italias and enough money to double-glaze the Colosseum.

I love his constancy but frankly I would be more impressed if he had stayed at Stenhousemuir since 1989.