I don't think it will ever happen but I do sometimes wonder what would happen if he came back to manage us. It's already 21 years ago, a lot of younger fans (myself included) can't properly remember it happening and our opinion is based on the things we've heard and read from others. I understand why it would take older fans (sorry!) more time to be won over but I think a decent chunk of the fan base would be fully behind him if he made a solid start, it could turn sour very quickly if things went wrong though
I do think there would be a pretty big undercurrent of animosity at the start but fans can be fickle. Think he'd be given a lot less leeway than a manager without the previous baggage if things went awry. Could never see him managing us though.
And what’s he actually achieved as a manager? Promotions with clubs that have parachute payments?
I don't think it will ever happen but I do sometimes wonder what would happen if he came back to manage us. It's already 21 years ago, a lot of younger fans (myself included) can't properly remember it happening and our opinion is based on the things we've heard and read from others. I understand why it would take older fans (sorry!) more time to be won over but I think a decent chunk of the fan base would be fully behind him if he made a solid start, it could turn sour very quickly if things went wrong though
I'll always remember when Parker and Jensen had both left, and I think we played our last pre-season friendly with a midfield of Bryan Hughes and Jason Euell, I knew it was the beginning of the end.
He was 23 when Chelsea and Abramovic's millions came knocking. After 4 years in Charlton's first team he'd already have been very well paid but then came the offer to set him up financially for life. Anybody on here suggesting they'd have risked putting off that transfer until the summer so they could see Charlton through to a possible European place, is deluded or a hypocrite or both. He was 3 years married at the time. One bad injury and that security is dust. Chelsea's financial might meant they had the whip hand in negotiations, not just over Charlton. They mopped up more than just Spotty, from 'smaller' clubs then threatening the top 6. The leak that he'd demanded the move, ensured his reputation was ruined with (some of) the faithful. The appearance of his brand new Aston Martin in the players' car park was a pretty loud FU. His conduct since has been exemplary but the sin of ambition is vehemently unforgiven in the minds of this noisy few. Weird. Who really was the greater sinner? Parker and his ambition, or moneybags Chelsea and their flagrant abuse of the rules?
In contrast, the sale of Lee Bowyer to Leeds is accepted as 'one of those things, we're a selling club, can't turn down those millions'. I don't remember any leaks or rumours about how blatantly Lee had been tapped up, or how he then behaved if/when he found out. He had of course already misbehaved in ways for which people could legitimately think badly of him. He matured, didn't continually repeat the misdemeanours and his reputation with (most) Addicks is fully restored. Odd innit?
100%
More like 40% for me. I deffo agree that we should look at Chelsea more than Parker. Although they didnt break the rules. At that time there were ‘t any rules, neither in football nor against Russians with absurdly dubious riches settling for pads in Eaton Square after they reluctantly accepted that Buckingham Place was really not for sale at any price.
But I don’t quite buy the argument that Parker (and more pertinetly, his agent) had to take that offer. Any agent with a brain not addled by greed (a rare commodity, but I’m told they exist) would see that his client’s value and options would double within four months; and an England call-up. After all Chris Powell got the call while at Charlton, and he didnt even expect it!
Nor do I like the Bow analogy much. The reason we didnt kick up is that the financial issue- rebuilding the Valley - was staring us in the face. In 2004 we were in a much better place. We could attract players like Paulo di Canio. We didnt see the need to sell our midfield heartbeat to a club alongside us in the table, in the Jan window. A planned sale in the summer would not have generated much heat at all IMO. But in PV’s telling, their position was weakened by a verbal promise from RM, which unfortunately I can believe to be true, even though I was and remain eternally grateful to RM for his massive role in leading us to where we were in 2004. He never saw Abramovic coming, which to be fair nobody else in Britain did, and it took most of them 10 years or more to see exactly what kind of a **** he was.
I've now heard the testimonies of Richard Murray, Alan Curbishley and now Peter Varney on this transfer. Now I say this next bit fully acknowledging football is a priveledged but short career, and yes if someone offered me 5 times my current salary to do the same job with less hours I would be mentally ill to not accept. Not that I get 20,000 people turn up to watch me work, emotionally invested in me who love me.
Now, the realities
We were really close to selling him to Chelsea in the summer of 2003 and it fell over as Chelsea pre Abramovich were skint and couldn't front the down payment, so Scott Parker signed a very good new contract with us in the summer and embarked on truly the best 4 months of purple patch, unplayable, undroppable form of his life for us. His every touch was applauded, appreciated and loved by 23,000 people every other week not to mention his colleagues. Truly the heartbeat of a really decent team. Then, after signing that commitment to us the little toad spat his dummy out and refused to play unless we accepted a shit offer from the wealthiest club in the world to go and make enough money anyone in his family would never work again, not that many of them did anyway hopping aboard the gravy train that follows professional footballers like fox shit in the tread of your boots.
I believe there probably was a verbal agreement between Murray and Parker, I also believe that verbal agreement made in totally different circumstances could be upheld in the summer. Parker then 100% goes to the Euros as a genuine selection headache for Sven, he walks into the Arsenal or United midfields or even Chelseas had he continued in the form that showed no sign of abating and he wins sacks of trophies in a glorious career and crucially for me, he leaves as a hero as opposed to the bitter, grabbing little gimp I still think he is.
I fully accept I should have gotten over this saga but after 21 years I still feel as angry about it as I did then. I struggle to get past how he treated Alan Curbishley who has graciously moved past it (much easier when in the game in a professional capacity than us emotionally invested), how he got his own way behaving like that and how he ended up being everyone's favourite player for their club at clubs that won the sub total of fuck all.
He was a class footballer, I struggle to remember one so influential on an entire team but I get a cold shiver then a hot pang of anger and resentment as him quitting on us was our everest. And look at how much fun its been since
It was weakened by a promise from RM, but the promise was narrower than in PV’s telling. It was top two not top four, and the argument hinged on whether Chelsea were top two. That’s what was said at the time, anyway (by PV!).
Feels like he doesn't want to acknowledge his time at Charlton which is a real shame.
Unfortunately for Scott, despite him continuing to play for more than 13 years after leaving SE7, we still ended up being the club he had the most appearances for.
He made some decent cash and had a good Premier League career but you can't say it wasn't a waste to at least some degree.
The bit I have always hated the most about this transfer is the absurdity of the price going up at the last minute.
Don't get me wrong: Charlton's best player demanding a transfer; Chelsea tapping up a player; Parker negotiating an exit a few months after signing a new contract; a bloated, cash-rich club buying its way up the table: these are all reprehensible things.
But the one aspect that has always stuck in my throat is the sudden increase in fee.
The two clubs agreed a £10m sale. For Charlton, that was an eye-watering, bonus income. For Chelsea, it was an accounts rounding error. But, once Charlton had agreed to Parker's demand to be sold to the biggest (sorry... first) (actually, sorry...only) bidder, then Charlton should have expected to receive that, in full. But Parker - who had demanded, whinged and wailed his way to a sale - threw a spanner in the works at the last minute. He demanded (or perhaps his agent demanded on his behalf) a fee, from Charlton of ten per cent as he had not requested a transfer.
Had he put in a transfer request, he would not have been entitled to the fee. As he hadn't, officially at least, put in a written transfer request he was - he argued - due a ten per cent fee.
Charlton were rightly not going to pay that. So it was left to Chelsea to find the extra million quid and lump it on the fee. £11m. Of course, £11m less ten percent leaves Charlton with less than the £10m. Which meant that Chelsea had to put on more. Eventually, the fee (if it were ever put completely and transparently through both clubs' sets of books) would be £11,111,111.
Now, some or all of that story might be completely true and some may have developed over time. But, for Parker to claim a million quid for not putting in a written transfer request is a horrible blot on what might otherwise have been a brilliant Charlton career.
Comparing the Parker transfer to Bowyer is dim beyond belief. Bowyer's transfer was a player going from the First Division to the Premier League over the summer for a record fee for a British teenager. Completely different to a player throwing his toys out of the pram and demanding a move midseason while the club were flying the highest they had ever flown. That's why people are still upset with Parker, he was an English player doing incredibly well at a small club, the transfer options were always going to be there in the summer. He jumped early after making a fuss and it did real damage to the club; if we'd been able to finish the season strongly and end up in the European places we would have had the increased income and the increased pull to replace him more effectively. Instead we replaced him with nothing and then Bryan Hughes. Not to mention it was spectacularly poor negotiation from Murray to only get £10m from a team who'd spent £17m on Damien Duff that season. Parker was a big part of the club having an incredible season and chose to pull the plug on it midway through so he could get paid more for 6 months longer than he otherwise would have. If he'd left that summer having made a contribution - 4 more points would have got us UEFA Cup qualification - it would have been with most Charlton fans' blessing but instead he weaselled his way out and torpedoed the season. It's been all downhill ever since. Also I was 12 and he made me cry.
He was 23 when Chelsea and Abramovic's millions came knocking. After 4 years in Charlton's first team he'd already have been very well paid but then came the offer to set him up financially for life. Anybody on here suggesting they'd have risked putting off that transfer until the summer so they could see Charlton through to a possible European place, is deluded or a hypocrite or both. He was 3 years married at the time. One bad injury and that security is dust. Chelsea's financial might meant they had the whip hand in negotiations, not just over Charlton. They mopped up more than just Spotty, from 'smaller' clubs then threatening the top 6. The leak that he'd demanded the move, ensured his reputation was ruined with (some of) the faithful. The appearance of his brand new Aston Martin in the players' car park was a pretty loud FU. His conduct since has been exemplary but the sin of ambition is vehemently unforgiven in the minds of this noisy few. Weird. Who really was the greater sinner? Parker and his ambition, or moneybags Chelsea and their flagrant abuse of the rules?
In contrast, the sale of Lee Bowyer to Leeds is accepted as 'one of those things, we're a selling club, can't turn down those millions'. I don't remember any leaks or rumours about how blatantly Lee had been tapped up, or how he then behaved if/when he found out. He had of course already misbehaved in ways for which people could legitimately think badly of him. He matured, didn't continually repeat the misdemeanours and his reputation with (most) Addicks is fully restored. Odd innit?
100%
More like 40% for me. I deffo agree that we should look at Chelsea more than Parker. Although they didnt break the rules. At that time there were ‘t any rules, neither in football nor against Russians with absurdly dubious riches settling for pads in Eaton Square after they reluctantly accepted that Buckingham Place was really not for sale at any price.
But I don’t quite buy the argument that Parker (and more pertinetly, his agent) had to take that offer. Any agent with a brain not addled by greed (a rare commodity, but I’m told they exist) would see that his client’s value and options would double within four months; and an England call-up. After all Chris Powell got the call while at Charlton, and he didnt even expect it!
Nor do I like the Bow analogy much. The reason we didnt kick up is that the financial issue- rebuilding the Valley - was staring us in the face. In 2004 we were in a much better place. We could attract players like Paulo di Canio. We didnt see the need to sell our midfield heartbeat to a club alongside us in the table, in the Jan window. A planned sale in the summer would not have generated much heat at all IMO. But in PV’s telling, their position was weakened by a verbal promise from RM, which unfortunately I can believe to be true, even though I was and remain eternally grateful to RM for his massive role in leading us to where we were in 2004. He never saw Abramovic coming, which to be fair nobody else in Britain did, and it took most of them 10 years or more to see exactly what kind of a **** he was.
I agree when people say if he stayed till the end of the season then he may have had better options. BUT he could have had a career threatening injury that would have hampered a life changing move for him.
He was 23 when Chelsea and Abramovic's millions came knocking. After 4 years in Charlton's first team he'd already have been very well paid but then came the offer to set him up financially for life. Anybody on here suggesting they'd have risked putting off that transfer until the summer so they could see Charlton through to a possible European place, is deluded or a hypocrite or both. He was 3 years married at the time. One bad injury and that security is dust. Chelsea's financial might meant they had the whip hand in negotiations, not just over Charlton. They mopped up more than just Spotty, from 'smaller' clubs then threatening the top 6. The leak that he'd demanded the move, ensured his reputation was ruined with (some of) the faithful. The appearance of his brand new Aston Martin in the players' car park was a pretty loud FU. His conduct since has been exemplary but the sin of ambition is vehemently unforgiven in the minds of this noisy few. Weird. Who really was the greater sinner? Parker and his ambition, or moneybags Chelsea and their flagrant abuse of the rules?
In contrast, the sale of Lee Bowyer to Leeds is accepted as 'one of those things, we're a selling club, can't turn down those millions'. I don't remember any leaks or rumours about how blatantly Lee had been tapped up, or how he then behaved if/when he found out. He had of course already misbehaved in ways for which people could legitimately think badly of him. He matured, didn't continually repeat the misdemeanours and his reputation with (most) Addicks is fully restored. Odd innit?
100%
More like 40% for me. I deffo agree that we should look at Chelsea more than Parker. Although they didnt break the rules. At that time there were ‘t any rules, neither in football nor against Russians with absurdly dubious riches settling for pads in Eaton Square after they reluctantly accepted that Buckingham Place was really not for sale at any price.
But I don’t quite buy the argument that Parker (and more pertinetly, his agent) had to take that offer. Any agent with a brain not addled by greed (a rare commodity, but I’m told they exist) would see that his client’s value and options would double within four months; and an England call-up. After all Chris Powell got the call while at Charlton, and he didnt even expect it!
Nor do I like the Bow analogy much. The reason we didnt kick up is that the financial issue- rebuilding the Valley - was staring us in the face. In 2004 we were in a much better place. We could attract players like Paulo di Canio. We didnt see the need to sell our midfield heartbeat to a club alongside us in the table, in the Jan window. A planned sale in the summer would not have generated much heat at all IMO. But in PV’s telling, their position was weakened by a verbal promise from RM, which unfortunately I can believe to be true, even though I was and remain eternally grateful to RM for his massive role in leading us to where we were in 2004. He never saw Abramovic coming, which to be fair nobody else in Britain did, and it took most of them 10 years or more to see exactly what kind of a **** he was.
There were rules in place regarding poaching of players and that Chelsea regime were done for it a couple of years later with Ashley Cole.
The part that made the whole thing wrong was when we did not at first give in to Parker/Chelsea, Parker made training a total farce. Completely unprofessional and should not be forgotten when people say (and it was) a very professional career he had before and after. It was during it was the issue
He was 23 when Chelsea and Abramovic's millions came knocking. After 4 years in Charlton's first team he'd already have been very well paid but then came the offer to set him up financially for life. Anybody on here suggesting they'd have risked putting off that transfer until the summer so they could see Charlton through to a possible European place, is deluded or a hypocrite or both. He was 3 years married at the time. One bad injury and that security is dust. Chelsea's financial might meant they had the whip hand in negotiations, not just over Charlton. They mopped up more than just Spotty, from 'smaller' clubs then threatening the top 6. The leak that he'd demanded the move, ensured his reputation was ruined with (some of) the faithful. The appearance of his brand new Aston Martin in the players' car park was a pretty loud FU. His conduct since has been exemplary but the sin of ambition is vehemently unforgiven in the minds of this noisy few. Weird. Who really was the greater sinner? Parker and his ambition, or moneybags Chelsea and their flagrant abuse of the rules?
In contrast, the sale of Lee Bowyer to Leeds is accepted as 'one of those things, we're a selling club, can't turn down those millions'. I don't remember any leaks or rumours about how blatantly Lee had been tapped up, or how he then behaved if/when he found out. He had of course already misbehaved in ways for which people could legitimately think badly of him. He matured, didn't continually repeat the misdemeanours and his reputation with (most) Addicks is fully restored. Odd innit?
100%
More like 40% for me. I deffo agree that we should look at Chelsea more than Parker. Although they didnt break the rules. At that time there were ‘t any rules, neither in football nor against Russians with absurdly dubious riches settling for pads in Eaton Square after they reluctantly accepted that Buckingham Place was really not for sale at any price.
But I don’t quite buy the argument that Parker (and more pertinetly, his agent) had to take that offer. Any agent with a brain not addled by greed (a rare commodity, but I’m told they exist) would see that his client’s value and options would double within four months; and an England call-up. After all Chris Powell got the call while at Charlton, and he didnt even expect it!
Nor do I like the Bow analogy much. The reason we didnt kick up is that the financial issue- rebuilding the Valley - was staring us in the face. In 2004 we were in a much better place. We could attract players like Paulo di Canio. We didnt see the need to sell our midfield heartbeat to a club alongside us in the table, in the Jan window. A planned sale in the summer would not have generated much heat at all IMO. But in PV’s telling, their position was weakened by a verbal promise from RM, which unfortunately I can believe to be true, even though I was and remain eternally grateful to RM for his massive role in leading us to where we were in 2004. He never saw Abramovic coming, which to be fair nobody else in Britain did, and it took most of them 10 years or more to see exactly what kind of a **** he was.
I agree when people say if he stayed till the end of the season then he may have had better options. BUT he could have had a career threatening injury that would have hampered a life changing move for him.
I do not blame him at all. Good luck to him.
That could be said of any player in any particular time of there career. You could get hit by a car crossing the road, might as well not bother getting up out of bed in the morning.
He was 23 when Chelsea and Abramovic's millions came knocking. After 4 years in Charlton's first team he'd already have been very well paid but then came the offer to set him up financially for life. Anybody on here suggesting they'd have risked putting off that transfer until the summer so they could see Charlton through to a possible European place, is deluded or a hypocrite or both. He was 3 years married at the time. One bad injury and that security is dust. Chelsea's financial might meant they had the whip hand in negotiations, not just over Charlton. They mopped up more than just Spotty, from 'smaller' clubs then threatening the top 6. The leak that he'd demanded the move, ensured his reputation was ruined with (some of) the faithful. The appearance of his brand new Aston Martin in the players' car park was a pretty loud FU. His conduct since has been exemplary but the sin of ambition is vehemently unforgiven in the minds of this noisy few. Weird. Who really was the greater sinner? Parker and his ambition, or moneybags Chelsea and their flagrant abuse of the rules?
In contrast, the sale of Lee Bowyer to Leeds is accepted as 'one of those things, we're a selling club, can't turn down those millions'. I don't remember any leaks or rumours about how blatantly Lee had been tapped up, or how he then behaved if/when he found out. He had of course already misbehaved in ways for which people could legitimately think badly of him. He matured, didn't continually repeat the misdemeanours and his reputation with (most) Addicks is fully restored. Odd innit?
100%
More like 40% for me. I deffo agree that we should look at Chelsea more than Parker. Although they didnt break the rules. At that time there were ‘t any rules, neither in football nor against Russians with absurdly dubious riches settling for pads in Eaton Square after they reluctantly accepted that Buckingham Place was really not for sale at any price.
But I don’t quite buy the argument that Parker (and more pertinetly, his agent) had to take that offer. Any agent with a brain not addled by greed (a rare commodity, but I’m told they exist) would see that his client’s value and options would double within four months; and an England call-up. After all Chris Powell got the call while at Charlton, and he didnt even expect it!
Nor do I like the Bow analogy much. The reason we didnt kick up is that the financial issue- rebuilding the Valley - was staring us in the face. In 2004 we were in a much better place. We could attract players like Paulo di Canio. We didnt see the need to sell our midfield heartbeat to a club alongside us in the table, in the Jan window. A planned sale in the summer would not have generated much heat at all IMO. But in PV’s telling, their position was weakened by a verbal promise from RM, which unfortunately I can believe to be true, even though I was and remain eternally grateful to RM for his massive role in leading us to where we were in 2004. He never saw Abramovic coming, which to be fair nobody else in Britain did, and it took most of them 10 years or more to see exactly what kind of a **** he was.
There were rules in place regarding poaching of players and that Chelsea regime were done for it a couple of years later with Ashley Cole.
How was “poaching” defined and did Charlton have any evidence of it?(which is always going to be the hard part). PV was pretty good at resorting to legal action if necessary to exert our just causes. There was all kinds of shit going on, including Chelsea getting the Sun involved in black propaganda. But there was nothing that could be done.
It was always done to derail the competition at the time, Parker from us, Southampton with signing Bridge and Duff from Blackburn the three closest teams to Chelsea at the time it was very clear what the strategy was at the time.
And Man Ure signing the striker from Fulham - Saha I think.
He was 23 when Chelsea and Abramovic's millions came knocking. After 4 years in Charlton's first team he'd already have been very well paid but then came the offer to set him up financially for life. Anybody on here suggesting they'd have risked putting off that transfer until the summer so they could see Charlton through to a possible European place, is deluded or a hypocrite or both. He was 3 years married at the time. One bad injury and that security is dust. Chelsea's financial might meant they had the whip hand in negotiations, not just over Charlton. They mopped up more than just Spotty, from 'smaller' clubs then threatening the top 6. The leak that he'd demanded the move, ensured his reputation was ruined with (some of) the faithful. The appearance of his brand new Aston Martin in the players' car park was a pretty loud FU. His conduct since has been exemplary but the sin of ambition is vehemently unforgiven in the minds of this noisy few. Weird. Who really was the greater sinner? Parker and his ambition, or moneybags Chelsea and their flagrant abuse of the rules?
In contrast, the sale of Lee Bowyer to Leeds is accepted as 'one of those things, we're a selling club, can't turn down those millions'. I don't remember any leaks or rumours about how blatantly Lee had been tapped up, or how he then behaved if/when he found out. He had of course already misbehaved in ways for which people could legitimately think badly of him. He matured, didn't continually repeat the misdemeanours and his reputation with (most) Addicks is fully restored. Odd innit?
100%
More like 40% for me. I deffo agree that we should look at Chelsea more than Parker. Although they didnt break the rules. At that time there were ‘t any rules, neither in football nor against Russians with absurdly dubious riches settling for pads in Eaton Square after they reluctantly accepted that Buckingham Place was really not for sale at any price.
But I don’t quite buy the argument that Parker (and more pertinetly, his agent) had to take that offer. Any agent with a brain not addled by greed (a rare commodity, but I’m told they exist) would see that his client’s value and options would double within four months; and an England call-up. After all Chris Powell got the call while at Charlton, and he didnt even expect it!
Nor do I like the Bow analogy much. The reason we didnt kick up is that the financial issue- rebuilding the Valley - was staring us in the face. In 2004 we were in a much better place. We could attract players like Paulo di Canio. We didnt see the need to sell our midfield heartbeat to a club alongside us in the table, in the Jan window. A planned sale in the summer would not have generated much heat at all IMO. But in PV’s telling, their position was weakened by a verbal promise from RM, which unfortunately I can believe to be true, even though I was and remain eternally grateful to RM for his massive role in leading us to where we were in 2004. He never saw Abramovic coming, which to be fair nobody else in Britain did, and it took most of them 10 years or more to see exactly what kind of a **** he was.
There were rules in place regarding poaching of players and that Chelsea regime were done for it a couple of years later with Ashley Cole.
How was “poaching” defined and did Charlton have any evidence of it?(which is always going to be the hard part). PV was pretty good at resorting to legal action if necessary to exert our just causes. There was all kinds of shit going on, including Chelsea getting the Sun involved in black propaganda. But there was nothing that could be done.
I think we were more interested in getting the fee up rather than reporting them.
He was 23 when Chelsea and Abramovic's millions came knocking. After 4 years in Charlton's first team he'd already have been very well paid but then came the offer to set him up financially for life. Anybody on here suggesting they'd have risked putting off that transfer until the summer so they could see Charlton through to a possible European place, is deluded or a hypocrite or both. He was 3 years married at the time. One bad injury and that security is dust. Chelsea's financial might meant they had the whip hand in negotiations, not just over Charlton. They mopped up more than just Spotty, from 'smaller' clubs then threatening the top 6. The leak that he'd demanded the move, ensured his reputation was ruined with (some of) the faithful. The appearance of his brand new Aston Martin in the players' car park was a pretty loud FU. His conduct since has been exemplary but the sin of ambition is vehemently unforgiven in the minds of this noisy few. Weird. Who really was the greater sinner? Parker and his ambition, or moneybags Chelsea and their flagrant abuse of the rules?
In contrast, the sale of Lee Bowyer to Leeds is accepted as 'one of those things, we're a selling club, can't turn down those millions'. I don't remember any leaks or rumours about how blatantly Lee had been tapped up, or how he then behaved if/when he found out. He had of course already misbehaved in ways for which people could legitimately think badly of him. He matured, didn't continually repeat the misdemeanours and his reputation with (most) Addicks is fully restored. Odd innit?
100%
More like 40% for me. I deffo agree that we should look at Chelsea more than Parker. Although they didnt break the rules. At that time there were ‘t any rules, neither in football nor against Russians with absurdly dubious riches settling for pads in Eaton Square after they reluctantly accepted that Buckingham Place was really not for sale at any price.
But I don’t quite buy the argument that Parker (and more pertinetly, his agent) had to take that offer. Any agent with a brain not addled by greed (a rare commodity, but I’m told they exist) would see that his client’s value and options would double within four months; and an England call-up. After all Chris Powell got the call while at Charlton, and he didnt even expect it!
Nor do I like the Bow analogy much. The reason we didnt kick up is that the financial issue- rebuilding the Valley - was staring us in the face. In 2004 we were in a much better place. We could attract players like Paulo di Canio. We didnt see the need to sell our midfield heartbeat to a club alongside us in the table, in the Jan window. A planned sale in the summer would not have generated much heat at all IMO. But in PV’s telling, their position was weakened by a verbal promise from RM, which unfortunately I can believe to be true, even though I was and remain eternally grateful to RM for his massive role in leading us to where we were in 2004. He never saw Abramovic coming, which to be fair nobody else in Britain did, and it took most of them 10 years or more to see exactly what kind of a **** he was.
I agree when people say if he stayed till the end of the season then he may have had better options. BUT he could have had a career threatening injury that would have hampered a life changing move for him.
I do not blame him at all. Good luck to him.
That could be said of any player in any particular time of there career. You could get hit by a car crossing the road, might as well not bother getting up out of bed in the morning.
My point is that the first chance of a life changing move then you should take it.
He was 23 when Chelsea and Abramovic's millions came knocking. After 4 years in Charlton's first team he'd already have been very well paid but then came the offer to set him up financially for life. Anybody on here suggesting they'd have risked putting off that transfer until the summer so they could see Charlton through to a possible European place, is deluded or a hypocrite or both. He was 3 years married at the time. One bad injury and that security is dust. Chelsea's financial might meant they had the whip hand in negotiations, not just over Charlton. They mopped up more than just Spotty, from 'smaller' clubs then threatening the top 6. The leak that he'd demanded the move, ensured his reputation was ruined with (some of) the faithful. The appearance of his brand new Aston Martin in the players' car park was a pretty loud FU. His conduct since has been exemplary but the sin of ambition is vehemently unforgiven in the minds of this noisy few. Weird. Who really was the greater sinner? Parker and his ambition, or moneybags Chelsea and their flagrant abuse of the rules?
In contrast, the sale of Lee Bowyer to Leeds is accepted as 'one of those things, we're a selling club, can't turn down those millions'. I don't remember any leaks or rumours about how blatantly Lee had been tapped up, or how he then behaved if/when he found out. He had of course already misbehaved in ways for which people could legitimately think badly of him. He matured, didn't continually repeat the misdemeanours and his reputation with (most) Addicks is fully restored. Odd innit?
I don’t disagree with this in the most part, however there is a fundamental difference which was that the club were largely happy and willing recipients of the Bowyer sale at the time which was certainly not the case with Parker - and that, particularly given the respective differentials (tier 2 to prem bowyer, Parker moving to an equal), is where the supporter antagonism primarily and understandably lies.
Perhaps one interesting question would be whether there was any intent on our part to offer Parker a great financial incentive to stay. I believe he went from 15-45k p/w was the rumour, did we offer him a new deal to stay on say 30k, or some kind of signing in/ retention fee?
These are key details IMO and important when from a footballing perspective the move was hard to justify and with hindsight didn’t aid him given his stock arguably dropped at Chelsea, and he was already in the England squad and going from strength to strength in the European positions leading us.
Curbs was really quite sore about it - we sponsored him the following season and he told us it proved to him the limitations there would always be at a club like Charlton, however well we were doing. He’s moved on from that as others have said. But that’s harder for fans - and I reckon for his team mates at the time too. I doubt we’ll see Parker involved with our ex players’ association anytime soon.
Never heard that about the additional payment to Parker for not requesting a transfer! Absolutely staggering behaviour if true! And yes, Im still really angry about the whole saga to this day!!!!
He was 23 when Chelsea and Abramovic's millions came knocking. After 4 years in Charlton's first team he'd already have been very well paid but then came the offer to set him up financially for life. Anybody on here suggesting they'd have risked putting off that transfer until the summer so they could see Charlton through to a possible European place, is deluded or a hypocrite or both. He was 3 years married at the time. One bad injury and that security is dust. Chelsea's financial might meant they had the whip hand in negotiations, not just over Charlton. They mopped up more than just Spotty, from 'smaller' clubs then threatening the top 6. The leak that he'd demanded the move, ensured his reputation was ruined with (some of) the faithful. The appearance of his brand new Aston Martin in the players' car park was a pretty loud FU. His conduct since has been exemplary but the sin of ambition is vehemently unforgiven in the minds of this noisy few. Weird. Who really was the greater sinner? Parker and his ambition, or moneybags Chelsea and their flagrant abuse of the rules?
In contrast, the sale of Lee Bowyer to Leeds is accepted as 'one of those things, we're a selling club, can't turn down those millions'. I don't remember any leaks or rumours about how blatantly Lee had been tapped up, or how he then behaved if/when he found out. He had of course already misbehaved in ways for which people could legitimately think badly of him. He matured, didn't continually repeat the misdemeanours and his reputation with (most) Addicks is fully restored. Odd innit?
100%
More like 40% for me. I deffo agree that we should look at Chelsea more than Parker. Although they didnt break the rules. At that time there were ‘t any rules, neither in football nor against Russians with absurdly dubious riches settling for pads in Eaton Square after they reluctantly accepted that Buckingham Place was really not for sale at any price.
But I don’t quite buy the argument that Parker (and more pertinetly, his agent) had to take that offer. Any agent with a brain not addled by greed (a rare commodity, but I’m told they exist) would see that his client’s value and options would double within four months; and an England call-up. After all Chris Powell got the call while at Charlton, and he didnt even expect it!
Nor do I like the Bow analogy much. The reason we didnt kick up is that the financial issue- rebuilding the Valley - was staring us in the face. In 2004 we were in a much better place. We could attract players like Paulo di Canio. We didnt see the need to sell our midfield heartbeat to a club alongside us in the table, in the Jan window. A planned sale in the summer would not have generated much heat at all IMO. But in PV’s telling, their position was weakened by a verbal promise from RM, which unfortunately I can believe to be true, even though I was and remain eternally grateful to RM for his massive role in leading us to where we were in 2004. He never saw Abramovic coming, which to be fair nobody else in Britain did, and it took most of them 10 years or more to see exactly what kind of a **** he was.
I agree when people say if he stayed till the end of the season then he may have had better options. BUT he could have had a career threatening injury that would have hampered a life changing move for him.
I do not blame him at all. Good luck to him.
That could be said of any player in any particular time of there career. You could get hit by a car crossing the road, might as well not bother getting up out of bed in the morning.
My point is that the first chance of a life changing move then you should take it.
It may not come around again.
You are not necessarily wrong here but essentially this is like stock trading. Even taking our own biased CAFC perspectives from this, would Parker have been in a better place to sell or buy 6 months later? He cashed out when he did and as you say, hard to argue it was the “wrong” decision financially as he banked a lot, but arguably what followed could have been better as his stock was rising and I think almost certainly would have continued to rise both financially and reputationally for a further 6 months. Appreciate from his perspective the downside risk may have been too high at that point - but I’m not sure. I don’t think that even an ACL injury at the point would have suddenly wiped out interest from upper echelon clubs. It’s also not inconceivable that Charlton Athletic may have topped Chelsea’s January salary offer in June had we held out for a champions league place.
He was 23 when Chelsea and Abramovic's millions came knocking. After 4 years in Charlton's first team he'd already have been very well paid but then came the offer to set him up financially for life. Anybody on here suggesting they'd have risked putting off that transfer until the summer so they could see Charlton through to a possible European place, is deluded or a hypocrite or both. He was 3 years married at the time. One bad injury and that security is dust. Chelsea's financial might meant they had the whip hand in negotiations, not just over Charlton. They mopped up more than just Spotty, from 'smaller' clubs then threatening the top 6. The leak that he'd demanded the move, ensured his reputation was ruined with (some of) the faithful. The appearance of his brand new Aston Martin in the players' car park was a pretty loud FU. His conduct since has been exemplary but the sin of ambition is vehemently unforgiven in the minds of this noisy few. Weird. Who really was the greater sinner? Parker and his ambition, or moneybags Chelsea and their flagrant abuse of the rules?
In contrast, the sale of Lee Bowyer to Leeds is accepted as 'one of those things, we're a selling club, can't turn down those millions'. I don't remember any leaks or rumours about how blatantly Lee had been tapped up, or how he then behaved if/when he found out. He had of course already misbehaved in ways for which people could legitimately think badly of him. He matured, didn't continually repeat the misdemeanours and his reputation with (most) Addicks is fully restored. Odd innit?
100%
More like 40% for me. I deffo agree that we should look at Chelsea more than Parker. Although they didnt break the rules. At that time there were ‘t any rules, neither in football nor against Russians with absurdly dubious riches settling for pads in Eaton Square after they reluctantly accepted that Buckingham Place was really not for sale at any price.
But I don’t quite buy the argument that Parker (and more pertinetly, his agent) had to take that offer. Any agent with a brain not addled by greed (a rare commodity, but I’m told they exist) would see that his client’s value and options would double within four months; and an England call-up. After all Chris Powell got the call while at Charlton, and he didnt even expect it!
Nor do I like the Bow analogy much. The reason we didnt kick up is that the financial issue- rebuilding the Valley - was staring us in the face. In 2004 we were in a much better place. We could attract players like Paulo di Canio. We didnt see the need to sell our midfield heartbeat to a club alongside us in the table, in the Jan window. A planned sale in the summer would not have generated much heat at all IMO. But in PV’s telling, their position was weakened by a verbal promise from RM, which unfortunately I can believe to be true, even though I was and remain eternally grateful to RM for his massive role in leading us to where we were in 2004. He never saw Abramovic coming, which to be fair nobody else in Britain did, and it took most of them 10 years or more to see exactly what kind of a **** he was.
I agree when people say if he stayed till the end of the season then he may have had better options. BUT he could have had a career threatening injury that would have hampered a life changing move for him.
I do not blame him at all. Good luck to him.
That could be said of any player in any particular time of there career. You could get hit by a car crossing the road, might as well not bother getting up out of bed in the morning.
My point is that the first chance of a life changing move then you should take it.
It may not come around again.
At Parker’s age and his ever-increasing influence on games there’s no way he’d have never had another offer like that again.
The bit I have always hated the most about this transfer is the absurdity of the price going up at the last minute.
Don't get me wrong: Charlton's best player demanding a transfer; Chelsea tapping up a player; Parker negotiating an exit a few months after signing a new contract; a bloated, cash-rich club buying its way up the table: these are all reprehensible things.
But the one aspect that has always stuck in my throat is the sudden increase in fee.
The two clubs agreed a £10m sale. For Charlton, that was an eye-watering, bonus income. For Chelsea, it was an accounts rounding error. But, once Charlton had agreed to Parker's demand to be sold to the biggest (sorry... first) (actually, sorry...only) bidder, then Charlton should have expected to receive that, in full. But Parker - who had demanded, whinged and wailed his way to a sale - threw a spanner in the works at the last minute. He demanded (or perhaps his agent demanded on his behalf) a fee, from Charlton of ten per cent as he had not requested a transfer.
Had he put in a transfer request, he would not have been entitled to the fee. As he hadn't, officially at least, put in a written transfer request he was - he argued - due a ten per cent fee.
Charlton were rightly not going to pay that. So it was left to Chelsea to find the extra million quid and lump it on the fee. £11m. Of course, £11m less ten percent leaves Charlton with less than the £10m. Which meant that Chelsea had to put on more. Eventually, the fee (if it were ever put completely and transparently through both clubs' sets of books) would be £11,111,111.
Now, some or all of that story might be completely true and some may have developed over time. But, for Parker to claim a million quid for not putting in a written transfer request is a horrible blot on what might otherwise have been a brilliant Charlton career.
If he ever has the bottle to pitch up at a Club 1905 lounge Q & A session (he won't), I'll ask him why he was such a scrote.
An addition to this, when empathising, is that objectively Lyle Taylor’s financial decision making is/ was much much more understandable than Scott Parker’s. Do all those who forgive Parker also feel Lyle Taylor was in the right?
parker was on a 5 year contract 15k a week. Probably the equivalent of 60k today. What was his worst case scenario?
I can’t stand Lyle Taylor but I can certainly understand his decision making when he had a genuinely life defining salary on the table against the backdrop of a career in the 4th tier.
He was 23 when Chelsea and Abramovic's millions came knocking. After 4 years in Charlton's first team he'd already have been very well paid but then came the offer to set him up financially for life. Anybody on here suggesting they'd have risked putting off that transfer until the summer so they could see Charlton through to a possible European place, is deluded or a hypocrite or both. He was 3 years married at the time. One bad injury and that security is dust. Chelsea's financial might meant they had the whip hand in negotiations, not just over Charlton. They mopped up more than just Spotty, from 'smaller' clubs then threatening the top 6. The leak that he'd demanded the move, ensured his reputation was ruined with (some of) the faithful. The appearance of his brand new Aston Martin in the players' car park was a pretty loud FU. His conduct since has been exemplary but the sin of ambition is vehemently unforgiven in the minds of this noisy few. Weird. Who really was the greater sinner? Parker and his ambition, or moneybags Chelsea and their flagrant abuse of the rules?
In contrast, the sale of Lee Bowyer to Leeds is accepted as 'one of those things, we're a selling club, can't turn down those millions'. I don't remember any leaks or rumours about how blatantly Lee had been tapped up, or how he then behaved if/when he found out. He had of course already misbehaved in ways for which people could legitimately think badly of him. He matured, didn't continually repeat the misdemeanours and his reputation with (most) Addicks is fully restored. Odd innit?
100%
More like 40% for me. I deffo agree that we should look at Chelsea more than Parker. Although they didnt break the rules. At that time there were ‘t any rules, neither in football nor against Russians with absurdly dubious riches settling for pads in Eaton Square after they reluctantly accepted that Buckingham Place was really not for sale at any price.
But I don’t quite buy the argument that Parker (and more pertinetly, his agent) had to take that offer. Any agent with a brain not addled by greed (a rare commodity, but I’m told they exist) would see that his client’s value and options would double within four months; and an England call-up. After all Chris Powell got the call while at Charlton, and he didnt even expect it!
Nor do I like the Bow analogy much. The reason we didnt kick up is that the financial issue- rebuilding the Valley - was staring us in the face. In 2004 we were in a much better place. We could attract players like Paulo di Canio. We didnt see the need to sell our midfield heartbeat to a club alongside us in the table, in the Jan window. A planned sale in the summer would not have generated much heat at all IMO. But in PV’s telling, their position was weakened by a verbal promise from RM, which unfortunately I can believe to be true, even though I was and remain eternally grateful to RM for his massive role in leading us to where we were in 2004. He never saw Abramovic coming, which to be fair nobody else in Britain did, and it took most of them 10 years or more to see exactly what kind of a **** he was.
I agree when people say if he stayed till the end of the season then he may have had better options. BUT he could have had a career threatening injury that would have hampered a life changing move for him.
I do not blame him at all. Good luck to him.
I see you are playing the Lyle Taylor defence m'lud.
The bit I have always hated the most about this transfer is the absurdity of the price going up at the last minute.
Don't get me wrong: Charlton's best player demanding a transfer; Chelsea tapping up a player; Parker negotiating an exit a few months after signing a new contract; a bloated, cash-rich club buying its way up the table: these are all reprehensible things.
But the one aspect that has always stuck in my throat is the sudden increase in fee.
The two clubs agreed a £10m sale. For Charlton, that was an eye-watering, bonus income. For Chelsea, it was an accounts rounding error. But, once Charlton had agreed to Parker's demand to be sold to the biggest (sorry... first) (actually, sorry...only) bidder, then Charlton should have expected to receive that, in full. But Parker - who had demanded, whinged and wailed his way to a sale - threw a spanner in the works at the last minute. He demanded (or perhaps his agent demanded on his behalf) a fee, from Charlton of ten per cent as he had not requested a transfer.
Had he put in a transfer request, he would not have been entitled to the fee. As he hadn't, officially at least, put in a written transfer request he was - he argued - due a ten per cent fee.
Charlton were rightly not going to pay that. So it was left to Chelsea to find the extra million quid and lump it on the fee. £11m. Of course, £11m less ten percent leaves Charlton with less than the £10m. Which meant that Chelsea had to put on more. Eventually, the fee (if it were ever put completely and transparently through both clubs' sets of books) would be £11,111,111.
Now, some or all of that story might be completely true and some may have developed over time. But, for Parker to claim a million quid for not putting in a written transfer request is a horrible blot on what might otherwise have been a brilliant Charlton career.
If he ever has the bottle to pitch up at a Club 1905 lounge Q & A session (he won't), I'll ask him why he was such a scrote.
I'm just waiting to get Burnley in the Cup. Or they get relegated this season & play them next season in the League.
He was 23 when Chelsea and Abramovic's millions came knocking. After 4 years in Charlton's first team he'd already have been very well paid but then came the offer to set him up financially for life. Anybody on here suggesting they'd have risked putting off that transfer until the summer so they could see Charlton through to a possible European place, is deluded or a hypocrite or both. He was 3 years married at the time. One bad injury and that security is dust. Chelsea's financial might meant they had the whip hand in negotiations, not just over Charlton. They mopped up more than just Spotty, from 'smaller' clubs then threatening the top 6. The leak that he'd demanded the move, ensured his reputation was ruined with (some of) the faithful. The appearance of his brand new Aston Martin in the players' car park was a pretty loud FU. His conduct since has been exemplary but the sin of ambition is vehemently unforgiven in the minds of this noisy few. Weird. Who really was the greater sinner? Parker and his ambition, or moneybags Chelsea and their flagrant abuse of the rules?
In contrast, the sale of Lee Bowyer to Leeds is accepted as 'one of those things, we're a selling club, can't turn down those millions'. I don't remember any leaks or rumours about how blatantly Lee had been tapped up, or how he then behaved if/when he found out. He had of course already misbehaved in ways for which people could legitimately think badly of him. He matured, didn't continually repeat the misdemeanours and his reputation with (most) Addicks is fully restored. Odd innit?
100%
More like 40% for me. I deffo agree that we should look at Chelsea more than Parker. Although they didnt break the rules. At that time there were ‘t any rules, neither in football nor against Russians with absurdly dubious riches settling for pads in Eaton Square after they reluctantly accepted that Buckingham Place was really not for sale at any price.
But I don’t quite buy the argument that Parker (and more pertinetly, his agent) had to take that offer. Any agent with a brain not addled by greed (a rare commodity, but I’m told they exist) would see that his client’s value and options would double within four months; and an England call-up. After all Chris Powell got the call while at Charlton, and he didnt even expect it!
Nor do I like the Bow analogy much. The reason we didnt kick up is that the financial issue- rebuilding the Valley - was staring us in the face. In 2004 we were in a much better place. We could attract players like Paulo di Canio. We didnt see the need to sell our midfield heartbeat to a club alongside us in the table, in the Jan window. A planned sale in the summer would not have generated much heat at all IMO. But in PV’s telling, their position was weakened by a verbal promise from RM, which unfortunately I can believe to be true, even though I was and remain eternally grateful to RM for his massive role in leading us to where we were in 2004. He never saw Abramovic coming, which to be fair nobody else in Britain did, and it took most of them 10 years or more to see exactly what kind of a **** he was.
I agree when people say if he stayed till the end of the season then he may have had better options. BUT he could have had a career threatening injury that would have hampered a life changing move for him.
I do not blame him at all. Good luck to him.
I see you are playing the Lyle Taylor defence m'lud.
Comments
He can fuck right off.
Now, the realities
We were really close to selling him to Chelsea in the summer of 2003 and it fell over as Chelsea pre Abramovich were skint and couldn't front the down payment, so Scott Parker signed a very good new contract with us in the summer and embarked on truly the best 4 months of purple patch, unplayable, undroppable form of his life for us. His every touch was applauded, appreciated and loved by 23,000 people every other week not to mention his colleagues. Truly the heartbeat of a really decent team. Then, after signing that commitment to us the little toad spat his dummy out and refused to play unless we accepted a shit offer from the wealthiest club in the world to go and make enough money anyone in his family would never work again, not that many of them did anyway hopping aboard the gravy train that follows professional footballers like fox shit in the tread of your boots.
I believe there probably was a verbal agreement between Murray and Parker, I also believe that verbal agreement made in totally different circumstances could be upheld in the summer. Parker then 100% goes to the Euros as a genuine selection headache for Sven, he walks into the Arsenal or United midfields or even Chelseas had he continued in the form that showed no sign of abating and he wins sacks of trophies in a glorious career and crucially for me, he leaves as a hero as opposed to the bitter, grabbing little gimp I still think he is.
I fully accept I should have gotten over this saga but after 21 years I still feel as angry about it as I did then. I struggle to get past how he treated Alan Curbishley who has graciously moved past it (much easier when in the game in a professional capacity than us emotionally invested), how he got his own way behaving like that and how he ended up being everyone's favourite player for their club at clubs that won the sub total of fuck all.
He was a class footballer, I struggle to remember one so influential on an entire team but I get a cold shiver then a hot pang of anger and resentment as him quitting on us was our everest. And look at how much fun its been since
Unfortunately for Scott, despite him continuing to play for more than 13 years after leaving SE7, we still ended up being the club he had the most appearances for.
He made some decent cash and had a good Premier League career but you can't say it wasn't a waste to at least some degree.
Don't get me wrong: Charlton's best player demanding a transfer; Chelsea tapping up a player; Parker negotiating an exit a few months after signing a new contract; a bloated, cash-rich club buying its way up the table: these are all reprehensible things.
But the one aspect that has always stuck in my throat is the sudden increase in fee.
The two clubs agreed a £10m sale. For Charlton, that was an eye-watering, bonus income. For Chelsea, it was an accounts rounding error. But, once Charlton had agreed to Parker's demand to be sold to the biggest (sorry... first) (actually, sorry...only) bidder, then Charlton should have expected to receive that, in full. But Parker - who had demanded, whinged and wailed his way to a sale - threw a spanner in the works at the last minute. He demanded (or perhaps his agent demanded on his behalf) a fee, from Charlton of ten per cent as he had not requested a transfer.
Had he put in a transfer request, he would not have been entitled to the fee. As he hadn't, officially at least, put in a written transfer request he was - he argued - due a ten per cent fee.
Charlton were rightly not going to pay that. So it was left to Chelsea to find the extra million quid and lump it on the fee. £11m. Of course, £11m less ten percent leaves Charlton with less than the £10m. Which meant that Chelsea had to put on more. Eventually, the fee (if it were ever put completely and transparently through both clubs' sets of books) would be £11,111,111.
Now, some or all of that story might be completely true and some may have developed over time. But, for Parker to claim a million quid for not putting in a written transfer request is a horrible blot on what might otherwise have been a brilliant Charlton career.
Parker, Murphy, Taylor.
It may not come around again.
These are key details IMO and important when from a footballing perspective the move was hard to justify and with hindsight didn’t aid him given his stock arguably dropped at Chelsea, and he was already in the England squad and going from strength to strength in the European positions leading us.
parker was on a 5 year contract 15k a week. Probably the equivalent of 60k today. What was his worst case scenario?
I can’t stand Lyle Taylor but I can certainly understand his decision making when he had a genuinely life defining salary on the table against the backdrop of a career in the 4th tier.