Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Peter Varney on Scott Parker's transfer to Chelsea
Comments
-
The man is a wanker.13
-
I didn't "abuse" himusetobunkin said:My pre teen son adored Parker and had him as his role model, with his name proudly printed on the back of his shirt.
He was so disappointed when he left.I didn’t have a problem with Parker moving on, it was just the manner in which he left.If he had asked for a loan back to complete the season I think he would have moved with our blessing. But his petulant attitude and behaviour stuck in most people throat.While coming back as a player I never abused him as I like to think that I am above that and you be a poor example to others. However I would draw the line at him managing us, however far into the future if ever.
But shouted "You let us all down Scott" when sitting in the front row for a match vs Newcastle and he'd come over for a throw
He seemed irked... but maybe that was in my head
0 -
Chelsea signed Parker to derail our season and make sure we couldn't finish above them.usetobunkin said:My pre teen son adored Parker and had him as his role model, with his name proudly printed on the back of his shirt.
He was so disappointed when he left.I didn’t have a problem with Parker moving on, it was just the manner in which he left.If he had asked for a loan back to complete the season I think he would have moved with our blessing. But his petulant attitude and behaviour stuck in most people throat.While coming back as a player I never abused him as I like to think that I am above that and you be a poor example to others. However I would draw the line at him managing us, however far into the future if ever.
So a loan back for the rest of the season was never going to happen.10 -
I wouldn't be fickle, I don't want him anywhere near managing us in the future. I think we would have finished in the top four had he stayed. Curbs let Kinsella go to make room for him and Kinsella was and is a bloody legend in my eyes. Ok, not in Parker's class but worth a 100 traitors anyday of the week.
If there is alternate universe where he wasn't a cnut and stayed, I believe that player would have ended up with a more successful career and made more money. Nobody can prove it either way, and he had a half decent career, but I firmly believe it.3 -
Do you believe that Brentford and Bournemouth have both "cemented" themselves as "genuine top 10 clubs"?PragueAddick said:
If you listen to the Price of Football you can hear Kieran Maguire talking about the view of football finance people that the FAPL basically has three sub-divisions, but the top one only has 6-7.SporadicAddick said:
You could argue that "established" and "cemented" are two very different things.PragueAddick said:
That's way over the top. Simply replace the word "cemented" with "established" and the proposition is perfectly reasonable. That's not to say it would definitely have happened, but even the FAPL post- Abramovic contained at least some jeopardy. For example one of the clubs in your disparaging list went and won the bloody thing! And nobody - including its most high profile fan in the media - saw that coming.SporadicAddick said:
Lets dispel that myth...mascot88 said:If the cap fits let him wear it -
He exit was at a time when we were close to cementing ourselves as a genuine top 10 club - his talent was vast and we were never going to be able to replace him particularly in January.
We felt we deserved more as a club than him forcing a leave.
I don't resent him I just think he is characterless, his bizarre face irks me to this day.
And he got punished for poor decision - his career was nothing like what it should have been.
He proved to be the ceiling for us and it's be decline ever since that boxing day.
The season he left we finished 7th. Even if he had stayed and we finished 4th, and even if he had remained at the club for the following season(s), we wouldn't have have cemented ourselves as a top 10 club.
Club's the size of Charlton do not (and cannot) cement themselves at the top of any league.
Ask Southampton, Sheffield Wednesday, Leicester, Bolton, Sunderland, Birmingham, Middlesbrough, Portsmouth, Fulham etc. etc.
Leicester's successive Premier League positions after their last but one promotion were 14th, 1st, 12th, 9th, 5th, 5th, 8th, followed by relegation, promotion and relegation.
Over a span of seven consecutive seasons in the Premier League, they finished in the top 10 five times. I'd say that was barely "established", let alone "cemented", as proven by them then coming 18th and relegated, then promoted, then relegated again. If you ask any fan today to name a "genuine top 10 club", I doubt few would reference Leicester.
Like Southampton, Sheffield Wednesday, Leicester, Bolton, Sunderland, Birmingham, Middlesbrough, Portsmouth and Fulham, Charlton do not have the scale or infrastructure to cement or establish themselves as a genuine top 10 club, and we were never in danger of doing so.
The process of establishing a club at any given level requires - like any business - sensible management and the ability and willingness to invest in infrastructure. Plans were laid to increase the Valley capacity to 32,000 and eventually to 40,000. Even with the existing 27k we were hardly a long way behind Chelsea pre-Abramovic or West Ham pre - continuous State subsidy. We were unarguably already ahead of Fulham and Palace in 2004.
Tell me, if in 2004, somebody had told you that they have a premonition that in 20 years time Brentford and Bournemouth will be established FAPL clubs, what would you have said?
I think you are basing your viewpoint (perhaps unconsciously) on the past performances or achievements of clubs. I daresay you invest in financial instruments a bit, so you'll be familiar with the warning that past performance is no guarantee of future results.
That was the start point of this discussion.
I don't believe they have, and I cant imagine many others do either.2 -
Tottenham have completely transformed their club in the years since we were in the prem, and there was a time where we were sending them players on loan. The issue is being able to replace/maintain performances when a mercurial talent leaves. Tottenham were able to do it when bale left, we weren’t able to do it when Parker left.Algarveaddick said:
Manchester City and Newcastle (and back in the early eighties, even Chelsea) would once have been on that list...SporadicAddick said:
Lets dispel that myth...mascot88 said:If the cap fits let him wear it -
He exit was at a time when we were close to cementing ourselves as a genuine top 10 club - his talent was vast and we were never going to be able to replace him particularly in January.
We felt we deserved more as a club than him forcing a leave.
I don't resent him I just think he is characterless, his bizarre face irks me to this day.
And he got punished for poor decision - his career was nothing like what it should have been.
He proved to be the ceiling for us and it's be decline ever since that boxing day.
The season he left we finished 7th. Even if he had stayed and we finished 4th, and even if he had remained at the club for the following season(s), we wouldn't have have cemented ourselves as a top 10 club.
Club's the size of Charlton do not (and cannot) cement themselves at the top of any league.
Ask Southampton, Sheffield Wednesday, Leicester, Bolton, Sunderland, Birmingham, Middlesbrough, Portsmouth, Fulham etc. etc.
1 -
Couldn't agree more, especially in regards to young players and players yrt to make their fortune.Billy_Mix said: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?1 -
What are you talking about?😂 People change jobs all the time. Whether their contract is up or not is simply irrelevant. Surely you just have to notify your company within a certain amount of time???Jints said:
You can insure yourself against that. You sign a contract, you should honour it - in football and anything else.ElfsborgAddick said:PragueAddick said:
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.ElfsborgAddick said:
100%Billy_Mix said: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?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.1 -
Famously 2004/05ElfsborgAddick said:paulsturgess said:
They’ve had several bad starts actually but still managed to get out of it. If anything they’re the reverse of the CAFC prem model of start we’ll capitulate at 40 ptsElfsborgAddick said:With the exception of probably six clubs, however many seasons you have been in the Premier League you are only one season away from relegation if you get off to a bad start.A shame palice have never had that bad start
I may have to stand corrected but they have never been close to a relegation, and come Christmas they have not been bottom three. Either way, the pricks are still up there.
And not so famously 2013/140 -
He was finically set for life by anyones standard by the age of 23 at Charlton. Its really about the life style you want after that.Radostanradical said:
Couldn't agree more, especially in regards to young players and players yrt to make their fortune.Billy_Mix said: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?
For some its a betting shop in Cobham, acting obnoxiously, slapping big wads of cash on the counter of the chip shop with your new more successful teammates.
For others and there are many there is a bigger picture.2 - Sponsored links:
-
Not quite sure what that has to do with my post, but you are correct.Diebythesword said:
Tottenham have completely transformed their club in the years since we were in the prem, and there was a time where we were sending them players on loan. The issue is being able to replace/maintain performances when a mercurial talent leaves. Tottenham were able to do it when bale left, we weren’t able to do it when Parker left.Algarveaddick said:
Manchester City and Newcastle (and back in the early eighties, even Chelsea) would once have been on that list...SporadicAddick said:
Lets dispel that myth...mascot88 said:If the cap fits let him wear it -
He exit was at a time when we were close to cementing ourselves as a genuine top 10 club - his talent was vast and we were never going to be able to replace him particularly in January.
We felt we deserved more as a club than him forcing a leave.
I don't resent him I just think he is characterless, his bizarre face irks me to this day.
And he got punished for poor decision - his career was nothing like what it should have been.
He proved to be the ceiling for us and it's be decline ever since that boxing day.
The season he left we finished 7th. Even if he had stayed and we finished 4th, and even if he had remained at the club for the following season(s), we wouldn't have have cemented ourselves as a top 10 club.
Club's the size of Charlton do not (and cannot) cement themselves at the top of any league.
Ask Southampton, Sheffield Wednesday, Leicester, Bolton, Sunderland, Birmingham, Middlesbrough, Portsmouth, Fulham etc. etc.
0 -
That's my starting point. I in turn wouldn't have butted in if I thought the OP really believed we were on the path to joining Man U and Liverpool at the top table. I took him to mean (and I believe it too) that we were on the path to establishing ourselves as an FAPL club, which in those days meant not being one of the six or so clubs earmarked by pundits as likely relegation candidates. Each season in the FAPL a club increased its revenue, and the higher it finished in any season the more the revenue increased. Even in 2004 finishing one place higher brought in £1.5m or so in TV money. The UEFA Cup was not then a money-spinner, and could bring pressure on a smaller playing squad, but it would bolster the "brand", in turn assisting sponsorship, and new investors. Of course all this money could be spunked up the wall, but at that point Charlton was a well-run club. I don't know whether RMs unilateral promise to Parker sowed the seeds of discontent within the Board and with PV, but from that point onwards, we lost our mojo, as several others have said. That would not have happened if Parker had not been such a twat; but in my opinion, far more damage and not just to Charlton, was done by our (i.e. the country's) craven open-arms welcome to Abramovic. Without his arrival,and the other types of mega-money investors he encouraged I believe there is a good chance that we would indeed have consolidated our position in the FAPL; and specifically our overall record from 2004 until today would have been comparable to Man City's.Gillis said:
The proposition being discussed wasn't becoming an established Premier League club, though, it was cementing a place as a genuine top 10 club, which neither Brentford nor Bournemouth have managed. If the original proposition had been becoming an established Premier League club, I doubt it would've been questioned. Short of a takeover by an oligarch or sovereign wealth fund, we were never likely to become a club that finished in the top 10 season after season - that's the preserve of those 6-7 clubs you mentioned at the start of your post.PragueAddick said:
If you listen to the Price of Football you can hear Kieran Maguire talking about the view of football finance people that the FAPL basically has three sub-divisions, but the top one only has 6-7.SporadicAddick said:
You could argue that "established" and "cemented" are two very different things.PragueAddick said:
That's way over the top. Simply replace the word "cemented" with "established" and the proposition is perfectly reasonable. That's not to say it would definitely have happened, but even the FAPL post- Abramovic contained at least some jeopardy. For example one of the clubs in your disparaging list went and won the bloody thing! And nobody - including its most high profile fan in the media - saw that coming.SporadicAddick said:
Lets dispel that myth...mascot88 said:If the cap fits let him wear it -
He exit was at a time when we were close to cementing ourselves as a genuine top 10 club - his talent was vast and we were never going to be able to replace him particularly in January.
We felt we deserved more as a club than him forcing a leave.
I don't resent him I just think he is characterless, his bizarre face irks me to this day.
And he got punished for poor decision - his career was nothing like what it should have been.
He proved to be the ceiling for us and it's be decline ever since that boxing day.
The season he left we finished 7th. Even if he had stayed and we finished 4th, and even if he had remained at the club for the following season(s), we wouldn't have have cemented ourselves as a top 10 club.
Club's the size of Charlton do not (and cannot) cement themselves at the top of any league.
Ask Southampton, Sheffield Wednesday, Leicester, Bolton, Sunderland, Birmingham, Middlesbrough, Portsmouth, Fulham etc. etc.
Leicester's successive Premier League positions after their last but one promotion were 14th, 1st, 12th, 9th, 5th, 5th, 8th, followed by relegation, promotion and relegation.
Over a span of seven consecutive seasons in the Premier League, they finished in the top 10 five times. I'd say that was barely "established", let alone "cemented", as proven by them then coming 18th and relegated, then promoted, then relegated again. If you ask any fan today to name a "genuine top 10 club", I doubt few would reference Leicester.
Like Southampton, Sheffield Wednesday, Leicester, Bolton, Sunderland, Birmingham, Middlesbrough, Portsmouth and Fulham, Charlton do not have the scale or infrastructure to cement or establish themselves as a genuine top 10 club, and we were never in danger of doing so.
The process of establishing a club at any given level requires - like any business - sensible management and the ability and willingness to invest in infrastructure. Plans were laid to increase the Valley capacity to 32,000 and eventually to 40,000. Even with the existing 27k we were hardly a long way behind Chelsea pre-Abramovic or West Ham pre - continuous State subsidy. We were unarguably already ahead of Fulham and Palace in 2004.
Tell me, if in 2004, somebody had told you that they have a premonition that in 20 years time Brentford and Bournemouth will be established FAPL clubs, what would you have said?
I think you are basing your viewpoint (perhaps unconsciously) on the past performances or achievements of clubs. I daresay you invest in financial instruments a bit, so you'll be familiar with the warning that past performance is no guarantee of future results.2 -
A question for the ITK's if their old memories can recall the noise at the time ?
CAFC couldn't match the Chelsea wage despite being prepared to pay Parker over a million a year with a wage increase and a loyalty bonus of about the same figure for staying.
This was before social media but this came from reputable Journalists at the time.
The Journos could've been fed false information as it turned very nasty after Scott had a tantrum and downed tools.0 -
Depends how you define close, there were several seasons where they went into the new year right in the thick of it, most famously the season they sacked de boer after about 5 or 6 games and went back to Woy i think to save the day. You are right that they always got themselves out of it before it got to full-on "squeaky bum time" but they have flirted with us more seasons than notElfsborgAddick said:paulsturgess said:
They’ve had several bad starts actually but still managed to get out of it. If anything they’re the reverse of the CAFC prem model of start we’ll capitulate at 40 ptsElfsborgAddick said:With the exception of probably six clubs, however many seasons you have been in the Premier League you are only one season away from relegation if you get off to a bad start.A shame palice have never had that bad start
I may have to stand corrected but they have never been close to a relegation, and come Christmas they have not been bottom three. Either way, the pricks are still up there.
i always hoped Zaha's departure would be the death knell for them but annoyingly they prepared themselves well for that1 -
I think 60k fans will disagree with that.Diebythesword said:
Tottenham have completely transformed their club in the years since we were in the prem, and there was a time where we were sending them players on loan. The issue is being able to replace/maintain performances when a mercurial talent leaves. Tottenham were able to do it when bale left, we weren’t able to do it when Parker left.Algarveaddick said:
Manchester City and Newcastle (and back in the early eighties, even Chelsea) would once have been on that list...SporadicAddick said:
Lets dispel that myth...mascot88 said:If the cap fits let him wear it -
He exit was at a time when we were close to cementing ourselves as a genuine top 10 club - his talent was vast and we were never going to be able to replace him particularly in January.
We felt we deserved more as a club than him forcing a leave.
I don't resent him I just think he is characterless, his bizarre face irks me to this day.
And he got punished for poor decision - his career was nothing like what it should have been.
He proved to be the ceiling for us and it's be decline ever since that boxing day.
The season he left we finished 7th. Even if he had stayed and we finished 4th, and even if he had remained at the club for the following season(s), we wouldn't have have cemented ourselves as a top 10 club.
Club's the size of Charlton do not (and cannot) cement themselves at the top of any league.
Ask Southampton, Sheffield Wednesday, Leicester, Bolton, Sunderland, Birmingham, Middlesbrough, Portsmouth, Fulham etc. etc.
2 -
charltonkeston said:
Famously 2004/05ElfsborgAddick said:paulsturgess said:
They’ve had several bad starts actually but still managed to get out of it. If anything they’re the reverse of the CAFC prem model of start we’ll capitulate at 40 ptsElfsborgAddick said:With the exception of probably six clubs, however many seasons you have been in the Premier League you are only one season away from relegation if you get off to a bad start.A shame palice have never had that bad start
I may have to stand corrected but they have never been close to a relegation, and come Christmas they have not been bottom three. Either way, the pricks are still up there.
And not so famously 2013/14The 2013/14 season they finished 11th. I was commenting on their term now since they got promoted.Not sure why 2004/5 was famous
1 -
soapboxsam said:A question for the ITK's if their old memories can recall the noise at the time ?
CAFC couldn't match the Chelsea wage despite being prepared to pay Parker over a million a year with a wage increase and a loyalty bonus of about the same figure for staying.
This was before social media but this came from reputable Journalists at the time.
The Journos could've been fed false information as it turned very nasty after Scott had a tantrum and downed tools.
I'm very much not ITK but I have seen a figure of around 35k a week mentioned. No doubt there would also have been bonuses they would have offered which we would not have been able to match.
0 -
If you have a chat with anyone who knew him when he was young, before he got in the first team and even when he was in the first team, he would often put us down and slag us off.
He was always an arrogant twat and always has been.
So for me, he can go f**k himself.7 -
w*nker. He was always a flash little pr!ck…wonderful player though and begrudgingly I’d say along with Jorge Costa and Super Clive, the best I’ve seen in my nearly 40 years as a Charlton fan. I’ll never forgive him for not giving us four more months though.SE10Addick said:If you have a chat with anyone who knew him when he was young, before he got in the first team and even when he was in the first team, he would often put us down and slag us off.
He was always an arrogant twat and always has been.
So for me, he can go f**k himself.
0 -
Football contract are not the same as normal work contracts. The latter allow either side to leave on x months notice. The former are for set periods, sometimes subject to buy out clauses.CAFC_CAT said:
What are you talking about?😂 People change jobs all the time. Whether their contract is up or not is simply irrelevant. Surely you just have to notify your company within a certain amount of time???Jints said:
You can insure yourself against that. You sign a contract, you should honour it - in football and anything else.ElfsborgAddick said:PragueAddick said:
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.ElfsborgAddick said:
100%Billy_Mix said: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?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.
How can you follow football and not know this?3 - Sponsored links:
-
Christian Eriksen was one of the seven players that Spurs brought in with the Bale money. And he’s the only one who could be remotely considered a success. They could transform the Club with the new stadium, but certainly didn’t do it with the Bale fee.Diebythesword said:
Tottenham have completely transformed their club in the years since we were in the prem, and there was a time where we were sending them players on loan. The issue is being able to replace/maintain performances when a mercurial talent leaves. Tottenham were able to do it when bale left, we weren’t able to do it when Parker left.Algarveaddick said:
Manchester City and Newcastle (and back in the early eighties, even Chelsea) would once have been on that list...SporadicAddick said:
Lets dispel that myth...mascot88 said:If the cap fits let him wear it -
He exit was at a time when we were close to cementing ourselves as a genuine top 10 club - his talent was vast and we were never going to be able to replace him particularly in January.
We felt we deserved more as a club than him forcing a leave.
I don't resent him I just think he is characterless, his bizarre face irks me to this day.
And he got punished for poor decision - his career was nothing like what it should have been.
He proved to be the ceiling for us and it's be decline ever since that boxing day.
The season he left we finished 7th. Even if he had stayed and we finished 4th, and even if he had remained at the club for the following season(s), we wouldn't have have cemented ourselves as a top 10 club.
Club's the size of Charlton do not (and cannot) cement themselves at the top of any league.
Ask Southampton, Sheffield Wednesday, Leicester, Bolton, Sunderland, Birmingham, Middlesbrough, Portsmouth, Fulham etc. etc.
1 -
The season Parker left, Charlton's form slumped, but we still managed to finish seventh. Had he stayed, there is a strong likelihood that we would have had a European campaign in one of the two, main European tournaments. With Parker still in the side and with the cash brought in by a higher league finish and the pull of European football, I think we could easily have beaten Aston Villa to seventh or even Newcastle to fifth. Either position would have been likely to result in another season's worth of European football.PragueAddick said:
That's my starting point. I in turn wouldn't have butted in if I thought the OP really believed we were on the path to joining Man U and Liverpool at the top table. I took him to mean (and I believe it too) that we were on the path to establishing ourselves as an FAPL club, which in those days meant not being one of the six or so clubs earmarked by pundits as likely relegation candidates. Each season in the FAPL a club increased its revenue, and the higher it finished in any season the more the revenue increased. Even in 2004 finishing one place higher brought in £1.5m or so in TV money. The UEFA Cup was not then a money-spinner, and could bring pressure on a smaller playing squad, but it would bolster the "brand", in turn assisting sponsorship, and new investors. Of course all this money could be spunked up the wall, but at that point Charlton was a well-run club. I don't know whether RMs unilateral promise to Parker sowed the seeds of discontent within the Board and with PV, but from that point onwards, we lost our mojo, as several others have said. That would not have happened if Parker had not been such a twat; but in my opinion, far more damage and not just to Charlton, was done by our (i.e. the country's) craven open-arms welcome to Abramovic. Without his arrival,and the other types of mega-money investors he encouraged I believe there is a good chance that we would indeed have consolidated our position in the FAPL; and specifically our overall record from 2004 until today would have been comparable to Man City's.Gillis said:
The proposition being discussed wasn't becoming an established Premier League club, though, it was cementing a place as a genuine top 10 club, which neither Brentford nor Bournemouth have managed. If the original proposition had been becoming an established Premier League club, I doubt it would've been questioned. Short of a takeover by an oligarch or sovereign wealth fund, we were never likely to become a club that finished in the top 10 season after season - that's the preserve of those 6-7 clubs you mentioned at the start of your post.PragueAddick said:
If you listen to the Price of Football you can hear Kieran Maguire talking about the view of football finance people that the FAPL basically has three sub-divisions, but the top one only has 6-7.SporadicAddick said:
You could argue that "established" and "cemented" are two very different things.PragueAddick said:
That's way over the top. Simply replace the word "cemented" with "established" and the proposition is perfectly reasonable. That's not to say it would definitely have happened, but even the FAPL post- Abramovic contained at least some jeopardy. For example one of the clubs in your disparaging list went and won the bloody thing! And nobody - including its most high profile fan in the media - saw that coming.SporadicAddick said:
Lets dispel that myth...mascot88 said:If the cap fits let him wear it -
He exit was at a time when we were close to cementing ourselves as a genuine top 10 club - his talent was vast and we were never going to be able to replace him particularly in January.
We felt we deserved more as a club than him forcing a leave.
I don't resent him I just think he is characterless, his bizarre face irks me to this day.
And he got punished for poor decision - his career was nothing like what it should have been.
He proved to be the ceiling for us and it's be decline ever since that boxing day.
The season he left we finished 7th. Even if he had stayed and we finished 4th, and even if he had remained at the club for the following season(s), we wouldn't have have cemented ourselves as a top 10 club.
Club's the size of Charlton do not (and cannot) cement themselves at the top of any league.
Ask Southampton, Sheffield Wednesday, Leicester, Bolton, Sunderland, Birmingham, Middlesbrough, Portsmouth, Fulham etc. etc.
Leicester's successive Premier League positions after their last but one promotion were 14th, 1st, 12th, 9th, 5th, 5th, 8th, followed by relegation, promotion and relegation.
Over a span of seven consecutive seasons in the Premier League, they finished in the top 10 five times. I'd say that was barely "established", let alone "cemented", as proven by them then coming 18th and relegated, then promoted, then relegated again. If you ask any fan today to name a "genuine top 10 club", I doubt few would reference Leicester.
Like Southampton, Sheffield Wednesday, Leicester, Bolton, Sunderland, Birmingham, Middlesbrough, Portsmouth and Fulham, Charlton do not have the scale or infrastructure to cement or establish themselves as a genuine top 10 club, and we were never in danger of doing so.
The process of establishing a club at any given level requires - like any business - sensible management and the ability and willingness to invest in infrastructure. Plans were laid to increase the Valley capacity to 32,000 and eventually to 40,000. Even with the existing 27k we were hardly a long way behind Chelsea pre-Abramovic or West Ham pre - continuous State subsidy. We were unarguably already ahead of Fulham and Palace in 2004.
Tell me, if in 2004, somebody had told you that they have a premonition that in 20 years time Brentford and Bournemouth will be established FAPL clubs, what would you have said?
I think you are basing your viewpoint (perhaps unconsciously) on the past performances or achievements of clubs. I daresay you invest in financial instruments a bit, so you'll be familiar with the warning that past performance is no guarantee of future results.
The following season, 2004-05, could certainly have seen us beat Middlesbrough to 7th and possibly City to 8th. And the following two seasons we could easily have replaced West Ham and Portsmouth in 9th place, respectively.
Over a seven season period between 2000-01 to 2006-07, four teams finished in the top ten each season, Man United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea. The next most prolific top ten finishers were Spurs (5 times) Newcastle, Villa, Blackburn and Bolton four times each. As I have set out above, Charlton would have been the tenth name on that list, achieving it four times in four seasons.
There's no question that Charlton could, probably should, have established themselves as a regular top ten club in the mid 2000s. Whether they could have sustained that is moot.9 -
We did always tend to slump in the second half of seasons when we were in the Prem.2
-
Jints said:
Football contract are not the same as normal work contracts. The latter allow either side to leave on x months notice. The former are for set periods, sometimes subject to buy out clauses.CAFC_CAT said:
What are you talking about?😂 People change jobs all the time. Whether their contract is up or not is simply irrelevant. Surely you just have to notify your company within a certain amount of time???Jints said:
You can insure yourself against that. You sign a contract, you should honour it - in football and anything else.ElfsborgAddick said:PragueAddick said:
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.ElfsborgAddick said:
100%Billy_Mix said: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?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.
How can you follow football and not know this?
You didn't see I was referring to the "and anything else" part in your post? Anyway, you have actually just agreed with what I said there and contradicted yourself.🤣So there's no point to continue this.🤣 0 -
If your contract allows you to leave on three months' notice and you leave having given three months' notice, you are sticking with your contract. What's your point again?CAFC_CAT said:ifJints said:
Football contract are not the same as normal work contracts. The latter allow either side to leave on x months notice. The former are for set periods, sometimes subject to buy out clauses.CAFC_CAT said:
What are you talking about?😂 People change jobs all the time. Whether their contract is up or not is simply irrelevant. Surely you just have to notify your company within a certain amount of time???Jints said:
You can insure yourself against that. You sign a contract, you should honour it - in football and anything else.ElfsborgAddick said:PragueAddick said:
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.ElfsborgAddick said:
100%Billy_Mix said: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?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.
How can you follow football and not know this? You didn't see I was referring to the "and anything else" part in your post? Anyway, you have actually just agreed with what I said there and contradicted yourself.🤣So there's no point to continue this.🤣0 -
Lol are we just making things up to suit our agenda ? He was not set up for life, he had a signed a 5 year contract at 15k a week, it made him an extremely paid young man but set for life ? No.charltonkeston said:
He was finically set for life by anyones standard by the age of 23 at Charlton. Its really about the life style you want after that.Radostanradical said:
Couldn't agree more, especially in regards to young players and players yrt to make their fortune.Billy_Mix said: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?
For some its a betting shop in Cobham, acting obnoxiously, slapping big wads of cash on the counter of the chip shop with your new more successful teammates.
For others and there are many there is a bigger picture.
That works out to be 3.9 million, before tax. Tax gets complicated as alot of clubs get round this by paying for image rights which isnt taxed work and whetger it would of been around at thhat time is another question for a player/club of this stature.
2 -
Only met him once, a number of players were helping out on the Red, White & Black Day. Your description fits my experience.SE10Addick said:If you have a chat with anyone who knew him when he was young, before he got in the first team and even when he was in the first team, he would often put us down and slag us off.
He was always an arrogant twat and always has been.
So for me, he can go f**k himself.2 -
Not sure why you feel the need to Lol the post. Maybe earning £3.9m before tax in 5 years isn't "set up for life" for you, but that's a huge amount of money, and more than many people will earn in there career. So it's fair enough for original poster to say Parker was set for life, depending on lifestyle he wanted.Radostanradical said:
Lol are we just making things up to suit our agenda ? He was not set up for life, he had a signed a 5 year contract at 15k a week, it made him an extremely paid young man but set for life ? No.charltonkeston said:
He was finically set for life by anyones standard by the age of 23 at Charlton. Its really about the life style you want after that.Radostanradical said:
Couldn't agree more, especially in regards to young players and players yrt to make their fortune.Billy_Mix said: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?
For some its a betting shop in Cobham, acting obnoxiously, slapping big wads of cash on the counter of the chip shop with your new more successful teammates.
For others and there are many there is a bigger picture.
That works out to be 3.9 million, before tax. Tax gets complicated as alot of clubs get round this by paying for image rights which isnt taxed work and whetger it would of been around at thhat time is another question for a player/club of this stature.7 -
I hear he was promised a bumper pay day by Clearasil.Radostanradical said:
Lol are we just making things up to suit our agenda ? He was not set up for life, he had a signed a 5 year contract at 15k a week, it made him an extremely paid young man but set for life ? No.charltonkeston said:
He was finically set for life by anyones standard by the age of 23 at Charlton. Its really about the life style you want after that.Radostanradical said:
Couldn't agree more, especially in regards to young players and players yrt to make their fortune.Billy_Mix said: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?
For some its a betting shop in Cobham, acting obnoxiously, slapping big wads of cash on the counter of the chip shop with your new more successful teammates.
For others and there are many there is a bigger picture.
That works out to be 3.9 million, before tax. Tax gets complicated as alot of clubs get round this by paying for image rights which isnt taxed work and whetger it would of been around at thhat time is another question for a player/club of this stature.4 -
Ooh spotty ParkerSporadicAddick said:
I hear he was promised a bumper pay day by Clearasil.Radostanradical said:
Lol are we just making things up to suit our agenda ? He was not set up for life, he had a signed a 5 year contract at 15k a week, it made him an extremely paid young man but set for life ? No.charltonkeston said:
He was finically set for life by anyones standard by the age of 23 at Charlton. Its really about the life style you want after that.Radostanradical said:
Couldn't agree more, especially in regards to young players and players yrt to make their fortune.Billy_Mix said: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?
For some its a betting shop in Cobham, acting obnoxiously, slapping big wads of cash on the counter of the chip shop with your new more successful teammates.
For others and there are many there is a bigger picture.
That works out to be 3.9 million, before tax. Tax gets complicated as alot of clubs get round this by paying for image rights which isnt taxed work and whetger it would of been around at thhat time is another question for a player/club of this stature.1
