Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Scott Parker

124

Comments

  • Were Chelsea even a Top 3 club at the time?
    They were 3rd and we were 4th if I remember and we hadn’t long beaten them nicely too...
  • Chizz said:
    Chizz said:
    Chizz said:
    Chizz said:
    Dazzler21 said:
    Chizz said:
    Seems we all forget that Parker demanded 10% of the fee, from Charlton, as a loyalty bonus, on the basis that he was sold without having requested a move.  Curbishley rightly declined.  Parker insisted.  And Chelsea ended up having to pay an extra million and a bit in order for Charlton to pay Parker the 10%.  So the fee ended up being £11.1m, a million of which Parker trousered.  So, yes, there were clauses.  And Parker squeezed every last drop out of them for his personal gain, to Charlton's detriment.  

    He was a brilliant player, of that there is simply no doubt.  And I am sure he will make a good manager.  But for anyone to defend the way in which he left the club is laughable. 
    As if anyone else at his age in his position wouldn't demand everything they could get.

    Seriously so many holier than thou types when it comes to this kind of behaviour.
    Remember that he had demanded - and got - everything he wanted, when he signed a new, five-year contract five months prior to walking away. 

    Brilliant player. But greedy, selfish and disloyal. I'm not sure how he could be seen as anything else. 
    We only have one player on our books who has been at the Club as long as Parker was with us - and Solly would have been long gone had it not been for his dodgy knee.

    So, presumably, all those players that have left us have been disloyal to us too. Or does loyalty work both ways because some of the footballers that we have let go will have felt, undoubtedly, felt let down by the Club. 

    But we never hear about those do we?
    Well, in fairness, this is the "Scott Parker" thread. 
    A rather irrelevant comment but then, I suspect, you know that - because it's like saying that no player or player's circumstances can ever be compared to another on any one thread.


    I don't think it being the Scott Parker thread is irrelevant as a response to someone asking why we never hear about other players.  

    He was greedy, selfish and disloyal.  That's not to say there aren't other players who are also greedy, selfish and disloyal.  But Parker was all of those, in spades, throughout the process of his move.  

    That doesn't make him a bad player: he was a brilliant player.  And none of the other greedy, selfish and disloyal players were anywhere near as good as him.  Likewise, none of the other brilliant players have been as greedy, selfish and disloyal.  There!  I have compared him to every player that's ever played for us! 
    But he wasn't for the reasons I've stated previously - signing that contract helped us every much as it helped him. So, by definition, we were as greedy in getting £10m for a player who, prior to signing that contract, we would only have received half that.

    If every single player gave for us on the pitch all that Scott Parker did we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But he is still being vilified because, without one shred of legitimate proof (because he might have been injured/lost form or the team as a whole, as it invariably did under Curbs, might have lost form come January anyway), it was all his fault that we didn't get into Europe. 
    I haven't vilified him. I haven't blamed him for us not getting into Europe.  I haven't claimed that Charlton weren't also exhibiting a form of greed.  He was a brilliant player.  I think he'd have been an even better player had he not made that move at that time (we will never know).  I think he did everything to maximise his talent; and that he had masses of talent in the first place.  I think the way he played was exceptional.  I think the way he handled himself off the pitch throughout the time prior to the move was exceptional.  He was someone of whom I was very proud, from the time I saw him in the McDonalds ad and the time I saw him sign his first professional contract on the pitch at the Valley and the time he played for England at U16, U18, U21 and full International level. He exhibited everything a model professional should exhibit during his whole career at Charlton. 

    I've simply stated he was greedy, selfish and disloyal at the time of his move.  And I am right
    No - because he signed a contract on the basis that, should a top 3 club come in for him, he would be allowed to go. His argument is that the Club were disloyal to him in not automatically honouring that undertaking. And he became the convenient scapegoat for something that, as I say, no one can prove would actually have happened - us getting into Europe. 

    It didn't take Curbs long to get over it though. Perhaps, because in his heart of hearts, he actually knew that it was likely to happen:

    "I was disappointed, we were fourth in the League and probably had the best team Charlton have had," he said. "It was bad timing for everybody, but I sent Scott a letter straight after the transfer expressing how much I appreciated what he did for me and the club."
    Might I ask, since joining this forum, have you ever, on any one occasion, taken someone else’s point of view on board? 
  • Don't often agree with Chizz but 100% behind his comments here.

    Never forget his sulk prior to the Gillingham game, of the fact he was banging on about his head not being right, bet it was when he went to the cash point.

    Or the fact he was banging on Murrays door whilst we were still walking out of the Valley after beating Wolves. Football wise all he became was a bench warmer until the next manager moved him on.

    Don't wish him any harm but don't wish him well either...football wise of course.

  • JiMMy 85 said:
    Chizz said:
    Chizz said:
    Chizz said:
    Chizz said:
    Dazzler21 said:
    Chizz said:
    Seems we all forget that Parker demanded 10% of the fee, from Charlton, as a loyalty bonus, on the basis that he was sold without having requested a move.  Curbishley rightly declined.  Parker insisted.  And Chelsea ended up having to pay an extra million and a bit in order for Charlton to pay Parker the 10%.  So the fee ended up being £11.1m, a million of which Parker trousered.  So, yes, there were clauses.  And Parker squeezed every last drop out of them for his personal gain, to Charlton's detriment.  

    He was a brilliant player, of that there is simply no doubt.  And I am sure he will make a good manager.  But for anyone to defend the way in which he left the club is laughable. 
    As if anyone else at his age in his position wouldn't demand everything they could get.

    Seriously so many holier than thou types when it comes to this kind of behaviour.
    Remember that he had demanded - and got - everything he wanted, when he signed a new, five-year contract five months prior to walking away. 

    Brilliant player. But greedy, selfish and disloyal. I'm not sure how he could be seen as anything else. 
    We only have one player on our books who has been at the Club as long as Parker was with us - and Solly would have been long gone had it not been for his dodgy knee.

    So, presumably, all those players that have left us have been disloyal to us too. Or does loyalty work both ways because some of the footballers that we have let go will have felt, undoubtedly, felt let down by the Club. 

    But we never hear about those do we?
    Well, in fairness, this is the "Scott Parker" thread. 
    A rather irrelevant comment but then, I suspect, you know that - because it's like saying that no player or player's circumstances can ever be compared to another on any one thread.


    I don't think it being the Scott Parker thread is irrelevant as a response to someone asking why we never hear about other players.  

    He was greedy, selfish and disloyal.  That's not to say there aren't other players who are also greedy, selfish and disloyal.  But Parker was all of those, in spades, throughout the process of his move.  

    That doesn't make him a bad player: he was a brilliant player.  And none of the other greedy, selfish and disloyal players were anywhere near as good as him.  Likewise, none of the other brilliant players have been as greedy, selfish and disloyal.  There!  I have compared him to every player that's ever played for us! 
    But he wasn't for the reasons I've stated previously - signing that contract helped us every much as it helped him. So, by definition, we were as greedy in getting £10m for a player who, prior to signing that contract, we would only have received half that.

    If every single player gave for us on the pitch all that Scott Parker did we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But he is still being vilified because, without one shred of legitimate proof (because he might have been injured/lost form or the team as a whole, as it invariably did under Curbs, might have lost form come January anyway), it was all his fault that we didn't get into Europe. 
    I haven't vilified him. I haven't blamed him for us not getting into Europe.  I haven't claimed that Charlton weren't also exhibiting a form of greed.  He was a brilliant player.  I think he'd have been an even better player had he not made that move at that time (we will never know).  I think he did everything to maximise his talent; and that he had masses of talent in the first place.  I think the way he played was exceptional.  I think the way he handled himself off the pitch throughout the time prior to the move was exceptional.  He was someone of whom I was very proud, from the time I saw him in the McDonalds ad and the time I saw him sign his first professional contract on the pitch at the Valley and the time he played for England at U16, U18, U21 and full International level. He exhibited everything a model professional should exhibit during his whole career at Charlton. 

    I've simply stated he was greedy, selfish and disloyal at the time of his move.  And I am right
    No - because he signed a contract on the basis that, should a top 3 club come in for him, he would be allowed to go. His argument is that the Club were disloyal to him in not automatically honouring that undertaking. And he became the convenient scapegoat for something that, as I say, no one can prove would actually have happened - us getting into Europe. 

    It didn't take Curbs long to get over it though. Perhaps, because in his heart of hearts, he actually knew that it was likely to happen:

    "I was disappointed, we were fourth in the League and probably had the best team Charlton have had," he said. "It was bad timing for everybody, but I sent Scott a letter straight after the transfer expressing how much I appreciated what he did for me and the club."
    Might I ask, since joining this forum, have you ever, on any one occasion, taken someone else’s point of view on board? 
    You may
  • JiMMy 85 said:
    Chizz said:
    Chizz said:
    Chizz said:
    Chizz said:
    Dazzler21 said:
    Chizz said:
    Seems we all forget that Parker demanded 10% of the fee, from Charlton, as a loyalty bonus, on the basis that he was sold without having requested a move.  Curbishley rightly declined.  Parker insisted.  And Chelsea ended up having to pay an extra million and a bit in order for Charlton to pay Parker the 10%.  So the fee ended up being £11.1m, a million of which Parker trousered.  So, yes, there were clauses.  And Parker squeezed every last drop out of them for his personal gain, to Charlton's detriment.  

    He was a brilliant player, of that there is simply no doubt.  And I am sure he will make a good manager.  But for anyone to defend the way in which he left the club is laughable. 
    As if anyone else at his age in his position wouldn't demand everything they could get.

    Seriously so many holier than thou types when it comes to this kind of behaviour.
    Remember that he had demanded - and got - everything he wanted, when he signed a new, five-year contract five months prior to walking away. 

    Brilliant player. But greedy, selfish and disloyal. I'm not sure how he could be seen as anything else. 
    We only have one player on our books who has been at the Club as long as Parker was with us - and Solly would have been long gone had it not been for his dodgy knee.

    So, presumably, all those players that have left us have been disloyal to us too. Or does loyalty work both ways because some of the footballers that we have let go will have felt, undoubtedly, felt let down by the Club. 

    But we never hear about those do we?
    Well, in fairness, this is the "Scott Parker" thread. 
    A rather irrelevant comment but then, I suspect, you know that - because it's like saying that no player or player's circumstances can ever be compared to another on any one thread.


    I don't think it being the Scott Parker thread is irrelevant as a response to someone asking why we never hear about other players.  

    He was greedy, selfish and disloyal.  That's not to say there aren't other players who are also greedy, selfish and disloyal.  But Parker was all of those, in spades, throughout the process of his move.  

    That doesn't make him a bad player: he was a brilliant player.  And none of the other greedy, selfish and disloyal players were anywhere near as good as him.  Likewise, none of the other brilliant players have been as greedy, selfish and disloyal.  There!  I have compared him to every player that's ever played for us! 
    But he wasn't for the reasons I've stated previously - signing that contract helped us every much as it helped him. So, by definition, we were as greedy in getting £10m for a player who, prior to signing that contract, we would only have received half that.

    If every single player gave for us on the pitch all that Scott Parker did we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But he is still being vilified because, without one shred of legitimate proof (because he might have been injured/lost form or the team as a whole, as it invariably did under Curbs, might have lost form come January anyway), it was all his fault that we didn't get into Europe. 
    I haven't vilified him. I haven't blamed him for us not getting into Europe.  I haven't claimed that Charlton weren't also exhibiting a form of greed.  He was a brilliant player.  I think he'd have been an even better player had he not made that move at that time (we will never know).  I think he did everything to maximise his talent; and that he had masses of talent in the first place.  I think the way he played was exceptional.  I think the way he handled himself off the pitch throughout the time prior to the move was exceptional.  He was someone of whom I was very proud, from the time I saw him in the McDonalds ad and the time I saw him sign his first professional contract on the pitch at the Valley and the time he played for England at U16, U18, U21 and full International level. He exhibited everything a model professional should exhibit during his whole career at Charlton. 

    I've simply stated he was greedy, selfish and disloyal at the time of his move.  And I am right
    No - because he signed a contract on the basis that, should a top 3 club come in for him, he would be allowed to go. His argument is that the Club were disloyal to him in not automatically honouring that undertaking. And he became the convenient scapegoat for something that, as I say, no one can prove would actually have happened - us getting into Europe. 

    It didn't take Curbs long to get over it though. Perhaps, because in his heart of hearts, he actually knew that it was likely to happen:

    "I was disappointed, we were fourth in the League and probably had the best team Charlton have had," he said. "It was bad timing for everybody, but I sent Scott a letter straight after the transfer expressing how much I appreciated what he did for me and the club."
    Might I ask, since joining this forum, have you ever, on any one occasion, taken someone else’s point of view on board? 
    Who are you asking? @addickaddict or @chizz? Sorry but it's a bit confusing. If it is the former then the answer is yes but if it's the latter then it's categorically a No! 
  • Riviera said:
    JiMMy 85 said:
    Chizz said:
    Chizz said:
    Chizz said:
    Chizz said:
    Dazzler21 said:
    Chizz said:
    Seems we all forget that Parker demanded 10% of the fee, from Charlton, as a loyalty bonus, on the basis that he was sold without having requested a move.  Curbishley rightly declined.  Parker insisted.  And Chelsea ended up having to pay an extra million and a bit in order for Charlton to pay Parker the 10%.  So the fee ended up being £11.1m, a million of which Parker trousered.  So, yes, there were clauses.  And Parker squeezed every last drop out of them for his personal gain, to Charlton's detriment.  

    He was a brilliant player, of that there is simply no doubt.  And I am sure he will make a good manager.  But for anyone to defend the way in which he left the club is laughable. 
    As if anyone else at his age in his position wouldn't demand everything they could get.

    Seriously so many holier than thou types when it comes to this kind of behaviour.
    Remember that he had demanded - and got - everything he wanted, when he signed a new, five-year contract five months prior to walking away. 

    Brilliant player. But greedy, selfish and disloyal. I'm not sure how he could be seen as anything else. 
    We only have one player on our books who has been at the Club as long as Parker was with us - and Solly would have been long gone had it not been for his dodgy knee.

    So, presumably, all those players that have left us have been disloyal to us too. Or does loyalty work both ways because some of the footballers that we have let go will have felt, undoubtedly, felt let down by the Club. 

    But we never hear about those do we?
    Well, in fairness, this is the "Scott Parker" thread. 
    A rather irrelevant comment but then, I suspect, you know that - because it's like saying that no player or player's circumstances can ever be compared to another on any one thread.


    I don't think it being the Scott Parker thread is irrelevant as a response to someone asking why we never hear about other players.  

    He was greedy, selfish and disloyal.  That's not to say there aren't other players who are also greedy, selfish and disloyal.  But Parker was all of those, in spades, throughout the process of his move.  

    That doesn't make him a bad player: he was a brilliant player.  And none of the other greedy, selfish and disloyal players were anywhere near as good as him.  Likewise, none of the other brilliant players have been as greedy, selfish and disloyal.  There!  I have compared him to every player that's ever played for us! 
    But he wasn't for the reasons I've stated previously - signing that contract helped us every much as it helped him. So, by definition, we were as greedy in getting £10m for a player who, prior to signing that contract, we would only have received half that.

    If every single player gave for us on the pitch all that Scott Parker did we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But he is still being vilified because, without one shred of legitimate proof (because he might have been injured/lost form or the team as a whole, as it invariably did under Curbs, might have lost form come January anyway), it was all his fault that we didn't get into Europe. 
    I haven't vilified him. I haven't blamed him for us not getting into Europe.  I haven't claimed that Charlton weren't also exhibiting a form of greed.  He was a brilliant player.  I think he'd have been an even better player had he not made that move at that time (we will never know).  I think he did everything to maximise his talent; and that he had masses of talent in the first place.  I think the way he played was exceptional.  I think the way he handled himself off the pitch throughout the time prior to the move was exceptional.  He was someone of whom I was very proud, from the time I saw him in the McDonalds ad and the time I saw him sign his first professional contract on the pitch at the Valley and the time he played for England at U16, U18, U21 and full International level. He exhibited everything a model professional should exhibit during his whole career at Charlton. 

    I've simply stated he was greedy, selfish and disloyal at the time of his move.  And I am right
    No - because he signed a contract on the basis that, should a top 3 club come in for him, he would be allowed to go. His argument is that the Club were disloyal to him in not automatically honouring that undertaking. And he became the convenient scapegoat for something that, as I say, no one can prove would actually have happened - us getting into Europe. 

    It didn't take Curbs long to get over it though. Perhaps, because in his heart of hearts, he actually knew that it was likely to happen:

    "I was disappointed, we were fourth in the League and probably had the best team Charlton have had," he said. "It was bad timing for everybody, but I sent Scott a letter straight after the transfer expressing how much I appreciated what he did for me and the club."
    Might I ask, since joining this forum, have you ever, on any one occasion, taken someone else’s point of view on board? 
    Who are you asking? @addickaddict or @chizz? Sorry but it's a bit confusing. If it is the former then the answer is yes but if it's the latter then it's categorically a No! 
    Best response in this thread.
  • I think the fact that a player of that quality won fuck all trophy wise after leaving us says all you need to know about what a stupid decision it was to go to Chelsea at that time. If he'd have waited 12-18m he could have replaced Keane at Old Trafford, Fergie always rated him. 
     As they say, fixed that for you as I really don't think he'd have won any trophies if he had stayed. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • it wouldn't have been such an issue if we'd been able to replace him adequately. But whatever the question, the answer is never Danny Murphy 
  • I don't really care what anyone else thinks or says on this subject. He left four months too early, simple as that. CAFC would have received the same amount (or more) in May, he would have received the same (or more) in wages and he would have been part of the England squad in Portugal that summer. And we would not even been having this debate, as he would be a hero to 95% of Addicks fans.  
    Ah yes great debating there.
  • We can all argue until we are blue in the face about Parker. (FWIW I'm very much in the greedy bastard, why couldn't he just wait 4 months until we were in Europe and he could have left and had the pick of any club camp). 

    But there is absolutely no doubt that he won't be worrying about what we think! From yesterday's Sun (and I precis a bit) :- Fulham caretaker boss Scott Parker is splashing out on a mansion complete with a pool. Parker has won planning permission to build the 5 bedroom pile with a leisure complex (including sauna, gym and pool . The luxury pad will also have a cinema, games room  guest suite  staff quarters and triple garage. Parker sold his last home for £7 million in December after buying the site for £2.4 million in 2012 

    Maybe he could make a donation to the fund to buy the club from Douchbag!
  • I don't really care what anyone else thinks or says on this subject. He left four months too early, simple as that. CAFC would have received the same amount (or more) in May, he would have received the same (or more) in wages and he would have been part of the England squad in Portugal that summer. And we would not even been having this debate, as he would be a hero to 95% of Addicks fans.  
    Thought I'd stumbed upon the Karlan Grant thread by mistake reading this (apart from the " Cafc whould have rec'd more money..."

    Seems like it happens to us too often.....
  • Dazzler21 said:
    I don't really care what anyone else thinks or says on this subject. He left four months too early, simple as that. CAFC would have received the same amount (or more) in May, he would have received the same (or more) in wages and he would have been part of the England squad in Portugal that summer. And we would not even been having this debate, as he would be a hero to 95% of Addicks fans.  
    Ah yes great debating there.
    It's not up for debate Daz. It's a statement. Take it or leave it, it has been the case for 15 years, and will be until I draw me last breath...     
  • We can all argue until we are blue in the face about Parker. (FWIW I'm very much in the greedy bastard, why couldn't he just wait 4 months until we were in Europe and he could have left and had the pick of any club camp). 

    But there is absolutely no doubt that he won't be worrying about what we think! From yesterday's Sun (and I precis a bit) :- Fulham caretaker boss Scott Parker is splashing out on a mansion complete with a pool. Parker has won planning permission to build the 5 bedroom pile with a leisure complex (including sauna, gym and pool . The luxury pad will also have a cinema, games room  guest suite  staff quarters and triple garage. Parker sold his last home for £7 million in December after buying the site for £2.4 million in 2012 

    Maybe he could make a donation to the fund to buy the club from Douchbag!
    I know Parker sold a property to Fernando Torres....

    Torres offered a sum of money that he just couldnt turn down.

    Which meant Parker and his family had to rent a flat for a while.


  • Sponsored links:


  • Looked lost yesterday on that line ... and Fulham looked awful - another club in freefall - 
    - sure Sam A will Be there next year 
  • Seems fitting that Scotty is back warming a bench in west London.
  • Seems fitting that Scotty is back warming a bench in west London.

    And witness Ranieri pack his bags again. Bit of a mirror.
  • Shahid Khan, Chairman of Fulham Football Club, today promoted Scott Parker from Caretaker Manager to the full-time post of Head Coach, effective immediately.
    https://www.fulhamfc.com/news/2019/may/10/scott-parker-fulham-head-coach
  • I've always said that Parker going to Chelsea was the football food chain in action, but what kind of rankles is that it felt like Chelsea didn't desperately need him. It was a useful signing which had the spin-off of snuffing out not a competitor perhaps but a club who threatened to become a nuisance to them (see Boxing Day 2003).

    That's why I was pleased when Jamie Vardy stayed at Leicester rather than go to Arsenal. OK,  Leicester have fallen away somewhat anyway,  but I don't think Vardy would have got a regular game off of Wenger. But Leicester certainly would have missed him.
    I think this is a good point. not sure there is any point in Parker having regrets, but Chelsea bought him to stop us finishing higher than them, You only have to look at how they played him, when they did that season. He won PFA young player of the year and that was solely due to his play with us. We can never know what would have happened, but at this time both Arsenal and Man Utd lost important midfielders in the summer. I believe he was well placed to have a better move to a club that really wanted him, rather than one that just wanted to damage a rival. 
  • Never forgive him. We had a great chance of having European football at the Valley if he had stayed till the end of the season. People need to remember that.
    I really don't get how so many people hold him solely responsible for us not getting into Europe. It is an unfortunate fact that, under Curbishley, our form consistently dipped in the PL in the latter part of the season. These are the results for our games from around the time that Parker left from i.e. from February onwards: 2001 - W4 D4 L6 2002 - W2 D6 L6 2003 - W4 D1 L8 2004 - W4 D4 L8 (year Parker left) 2005 - W1 D6 L8 2006 - W5 D6 L8 Based on those results there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that we would have got into Europe had Parker stayed with us. He probably made a mistake in going to Chelsea as it didn't actually help his career, as opposed to someone like Newcastle for example, but he also got injured - which he might have done had he stayed with us. it's all too hypothetical to predict. We also got top dollar for Parker and more than had he stayed with us for the rest of that season and then been sold because Chelsea would probably not have bid and they were the club with the money at that time. What isn't hypothetical is that he always gave 100% on the pitch whoever he played for. And I'd take a Scott Parker for four or five seasons for almost all the journeymen we have had since. But it's probably still his fault that we haven't been able to afford the likes of Messi, Neymar and Ronaldo because, had he stayed, we probably would have been up with Man Utd, Barcelona and PSG now in terms of success and purchasing power!
    Great post.
  • Dazzler21 said:
    I don't really care what anyone else thinks or says on this subject. He left four months too early, simple as that. CAFC would have received the same amount (or more) in May, he would have received the same (or more) in wages and he would have been part of the England squad in Portugal that summer. And we would not even been having this debate, as he would be a hero to 95% of Addicks fans.  
    Ah yes great debating there.
    It's not up for debate Daz. It's a statement. Take it or leave it, it has been the case for 15 years, and will be until I draw me last breath...     
    Its an opinion though, so of course its up for a debate. In your opinion he left 4 months too early, others disagree like myself. 

    I was gutted he left when he did, but cant really blame him for it. As others have stated he could easily have got injured, lost form or whatever, time as a footballer sometimes is precious and you need to take the opportunity.

    Think of Shearer who could have played for Man United and won alot of trophies, he most certainly regrets it now even if he has earnt a great living and still does. Adored by the magpies etc. but i am sure he still regrets not joining them, might have even said it at some point. 

    Ultimately i respect your opinion @Algarveaddick
    but its always one we will agree to disagree.  
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!