I for one am delighted, thought he was a God awful lazy player and i know at least one Charlton player who'll be happier now that he's departed. With Murty and hopefully Brown coming in, and Shelvey starting to make more appearances, I think we'll see the team with more fight and leadership.
Ah bugger, my comment got ate. Bouazza was intensely frustrating - lots of good work down the wing, but then blazing high or wide from a long way out when he should have passed. If he doesn't want to play for us cos we're crap, then sod him. We've still got other options - push Moots forward and move Sam out wide left, make use of McLeod's pace on the wing, or rejig the formation so we're only playing with one winger (someone suggested this last week, and I can't remember who). They may not be "quality" but they're ours, and this is their opportunity to raise their game and show us what they're made of.
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]i am sure loans dont get given to us for nowt there must be money that changes hands, does anyone know how it works if so please enlighten me
Different on every occasion I'd imagine.
It's more than possible a player can be loaned for free, simply for them to get 1st team football.
So no chance in hell of Dickson being either our saviour this season or a top goalscorer for us in League One next year, then? We'll regret that one, I think.
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]i am sure loans dont get given to us for nowt there must be money that changes hands, does anyone know how it works if so please enlighten me
Fulham were helping us out with Bouazza's wages, we were probably only paying half of them compared to Birmingham who are probably happy to pay all his wages.
Oggy and Len, let's not kid ourselves into thinking we had any say in Bouazza going - or even that Parky knew. Parky selected him to start in every single Charlton side he has ever picked and he was in the squad for Sat.
I would guess that we were given the option of matching the financial terms of the loan offer Fulham received from Birmingham (which I suspect includes them paying 100 per cent of his wages rather than the 50 per cent or whatever we have been paying). And I'm sure we declined the additional cost and Bouazza also probably made it clear he would rather play for Brum than us. But that is not the same as saying we let him go, because if we had a choice of keeping him at no additional cost, we would have done.
The OS match preview has been edited with rare speed to remove Bouazza's name from the story about Saturday's game. Parky's formation plans for Forest have gone out of the window and Sam is presumably now going to have to switch to left wing, wth Ambrose coming in on the right.
And are we still going to try to sell Sharon after this? Another tough decision for the board because we really are short of wide midfield players now - but money will again probably dictate over the needs of the team and if there's an offer for Ambrose, he'll be gone,too.
As for the latest news about Christensen - can anyone blame him for turning down our offer of a settlement on his contract when he can just carry on drawing £5k a week for the next two and a half years? Did Pardew accept an offer on his contract termination or did he insist on the full sum? So the lad is merely taking a leaf out of the book of the man who signed him...
Really southend have you read the comments from Parky
the only Joke is your post
I'd like him to stay, but I also want players who want to roll their sleeves up and fight. This is a big club and people have got to be ready for the 20 cup finals ahead of us. Hameur's a good lad, a good professional, but I don't want any disaffected players around the building."
if you want players like that then you reap what you sow i am afraid
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]As for the latest news about Christensen - can anyone blame him for turning down our offer of a settlement on his contract when he can just carry on drawing £5k a week for the next two and a half years? Did Pardew accept an offer on his contract termination or did he insist on the full sum? So the lad is merely taking a lead out of the book of the man who signed him...
Let's hope we find a way to get rid of him. Remember Winston Bogarde at Chelsea, admitted he was happy just to take his wages each week, £40k or so and barely every played. They even made him train with the youth team but he didn't care as he couldn't get that sort of contract anywhere else.
There was that quote from supposedly Christensen's agent, so hopefully they're trying to find him a new club.
Stop your bleeting everyone. Mootoo Right wing, Sam left wing, Jonjo able to deputise for either. We don't need some big time charlie who was mainly good at shooting wide from outside the box.
Don't think so, Valleyman. Read the O/S match preview (hastily revised since the Bouazza news). The only mention of Moots is that Murty will replace him at right back. Then it says Sam likely to switch to left wing with Ambrose on the right.
We know Parky doesn't rate Moo2, so I suspect only if we get an offer for Sharon does he even begin to come into the reckoning.
[cite]Posted By: valleyman[/cite]Stop your bleeting everyone. Mootoo Right wing, Sam left wing, Jonjo able to deputise for either. We don't need some big time charlie who was mainly good at shooting wide from outside the box.
Really hope this happens as Moo2 isn't a defender yet and his errors shouldn't get as shown up as much as they did in defence, and of course he'd have the very experienced Murty behind him (at least for a while).
I don't dispute that the Parent club calls the shots - Sailor made that point very eloquently recently.
However I think that Parky, as far as he can within the parameters open to him, has made up his mind to take a pragmatic approach do things his way with players of his type eg Murty and perhaps Wayne Brown if he comes.
He has picked Bouazza in every side so far because a) he hasn't really had too much alternative and b) he has hoped that the something special he is undoubtedly capable of might restore much needed confidence to both himself and the side.
b) hasn't really happened as we know all too well and as "grafting" is not Bouazza's strength and the Brum rumour has been about for a while Parky was, I suspect, fully reconciled to his departure.
It is also probable that even with Fulham's contribution Bouazza is among our more highly paid so he may even be able to get two players in with what he saves for the "matrix" or whatever they are calling the budget.
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]"Mootoo Right wing, Sam left wing"
Don't think so, Valleyman. Read the O/S match preview (hastily revised since the Bouazza news). The only mention of Moots is that Murty will replace him at right back. Then it says Sam likely to switch to left wing with Ambrose on the right.
We know Parky doesn't rate Moo2, so I suspect only if we get an offer for Sharon does he even begin to come into the reckoning.
I wonder why they didn't suggest Ambrose will come in on the left? I'm sure that's what we would have done in the past with Pardew here. Do they speak to the manager when they write these previews?
There are widely varying opinions on Bouazza, who could be maddeningly inconsistent.
But I feel this a big blow because he is one of the few players that could create his own offense. His shooting was poor, but he is explosive and generates strong opportunities.
Charlton could become an even more pedestrian offensive club without him.
I would rather have ZZ than Bouazza. I would have liked to have been able to have had both.
Unless we get in one of the talented youngsters from Arsenal, or get another Premier-calibre player with flaws like Bouazza, this one could hurt.
Sorry but Bouazza could be almost as frustrating to watch as Rommedahl.
Undoubtedly talented, in a squad that is challenging for promotion the type of player you want. However we're in a dogfight and we desperately need battlers who'll fight for every ball and Bouazza is not that type of player.
How many times have people said on this site they want a "Robinson" or "Brown". Well that looks very much what Parky wants too.
Why Charlton fans seem to expect skilled wingers to either deliver an assist/goal per game or to be tearing around the pitch jumping into tackles is completely beyond me but it has been a mainstay feature of opinions for as long as I can remember.
"I thought he was a promising young player; quick, direct, knows the English system and can do a job when team work is required.
"He has done very well at Charlton.
"It was made clear to me that there was a clause that would allow him to move in January. I know Charlton probably feel aggrieved at it but we've done nothing wrong."
So by saying he ha don nothing wrong he is saying that he actually shafted us ... nice
[cite]Posted By: BDL[/cite]Sorry but Bouazza could be almost as frustrating to watch as Rommedahl.
Undoubtedly talented, in a squad that is challenging for promotion the type of player you want. However we're in a dogfight and we desperately need battlers who'll fight for every ball and Bouazza is not that type of player.
How many times have people said on this site they want a "Robinson" or "Brown". Well that looks very much what Parky wants too.
Agreed.The bloke doesn't fit into the way we need to be playing at the moment in my humble opinion.
Something I just thought of, another reason for Fulham to recall him - Birmingham will probably be happy to pay £1-2m for Bouazza if he does well and they are promoted.
[cite]Posted By: Chunes[/cite]Why Charlton fans seem to expect skilled wingers to either deliver an assist/goal per game or to be tearing around the pitch jumping into tackles is completely beyond me but it has been a mainstay feature of opinions for as long as I can remember.
Yep that's just never going to happen. Fine having one inconsistent winger, but we'd probably be better off with one on one wing, and a Robinson/Stuart/Konchesky type player on the other wing. A bit more intelligence and better defensively to make up for the lack of pace and skill.
Don't think there is any point pretending that Parkinson wouldn't have liked him to stay, seeing as he's played him in virtually every game while the other loanees have been on rotation.
He's been inconsistent, he hasn't looked like he's worked very hard, and his shooting has been pretty poor.
But he's still shown more signs of the type of quality that could yet have won us a few games. One player it would have been good for us to able to keep in the squad, I think.
I think it's a case of Parkinson wanted him to stay if he was happy to and would try his best for us. If he wanted to go and would have been counting down the days until he left the club, Parkinson would have to accept that and let him go.
[cite]Posted By: Riscardo[/cite]A quote from that Twat at Brum
"I thought he was a promising young player; quick, direct, knows the English system and can do a job when team work is required.
"He has done very well at Charlton.
"It was made clear to me that there was a clause that would allow him to move in January. I know Charlton probably feel aggrieved at it but we've done nothing wrong."
So by saying he ha don nothing wrong he is saying that he actually shafted us ... nice
No point in moaning about it, vote with your feet, (so to speak) just don't buy any of their porno!!....;o)
It may be that it a loan with a proposed permanent at the end of it, which ours weren't. If that is the case who can blame Fulham for shipping him up there if they stand to get a fee at the end of it.
on one side he has scored a few goals for us (esp if you go away - with the strikes at Brum and Sheff U being in our top 5 goals so far this season)
on the other he missed a couple of sitters (Derby ?) which would have given us afew more points & he was a bad boy at Blackpool - giving the finger to the faithful that made the trip north.
All in all I would rather have kept him, but once again us and the loan system hasn't really worked out.
Parky's comments are cler to me - he wasn't interested, and wasn't pulling his weight. Thanks, but no thanks, you can go. I dont think we need be heartbroken, and whatever we were paying him is free for someone else now.
Bouazza probably the only player we have capable of doing something a bit different. Like all wingers he is inconsistent but we don't have another left winger at the club so he will be missed.
Quite worrying we are back down to only 3 loans now- Waghorn/Murty/McEveley.
Comments
Different on every occasion I'd imagine.
It's more than possible a player can be loaned for free, simply for them to get 1st team football.
Sorry, off topic.
Fulham were helping us out with Bouazza's wages, we were probably only paying half of them compared to Birmingham who are probably happy to pay all his wages.
We really know how to work this loan system.
Joke club
I would guess that we were given the option of matching the financial terms of the loan offer Fulham received from Birmingham (which I suspect includes them paying 100 per cent of his wages rather than the 50 per cent or whatever we have been paying). And I'm sure we declined the additional cost and Bouazza also probably made it clear he would rather play for Brum than us. But that is not the same as saying we let him go, because if we had a choice of keeping him at no additional cost, we would have done.
The OS match preview has been edited with rare speed to remove Bouazza's name from the story about Saturday's game. Parky's formation plans for Forest have gone out of the window and Sam is presumably now going to have to switch to left wing, wth Ambrose coming in on the right.
And are we still going to try to sell Sharon after this? Another tough decision for the board because we really are short of wide midfield players now - but money will again probably dictate over the needs of the team and if there's an offer for Ambrose, he'll be gone,too.
As for the latest news about Christensen - can anyone blame him for turning down our offer of a settlement on his contract when he can just carry on drawing £5k a week for the next two and a half years? Did Pardew accept an offer on his contract termination or did he insist on the full sum? So the lad is merely taking a leaf out of the book of the man who signed him...
the only Joke is your post
I'd like him to stay, but I also want players who want to roll their sleeves up and fight. This is a big club and people have got to be ready for the 20 cup finals ahead of us. Hameur's a good lad, a good professional, but I don't want any disaffected players around the building."
if you want players like that then you reap what you sow i am afraid
Let's hope we find a way to get rid of him. Remember Winston Bogarde at Chelsea, admitted he was happy just to take his wages each week, £40k or so and barely every played. They even made him train with the youth team but he didn't care as he couldn't get that sort of contract anywhere else.
There was that quote from supposedly Christensen's agent, so hopefully they're trying to find him a new club.
Don't think so, Valleyman. Read the O/S match preview (hastily revised since the Bouazza news). The only mention of Moots is that Murty will replace him at right back. Then it says Sam likely to switch to left wing with Ambrose on the right.
We know Parky doesn't rate Moo2, so I suspect only if we get an offer for Sharon does he even begin to come into the reckoning.
Really hope this happens as Moo2 isn't a defender yet and his errors shouldn't get as shown up as much as they did in defence, and of course he'd have the very experienced Murty behind him (at least for a while).
I don't dispute that the Parent club calls the shots - Sailor made that point very eloquently recently.
However I think that Parky, as far as he can within the parameters open to him, has made up his mind to take a pragmatic approach do things his way with players of his type eg Murty and perhaps Wayne Brown if he comes.
He has picked Bouazza in every side so far because a) he hasn't really had too much alternative and b) he has hoped that the something special he is undoubtedly capable of might restore much needed confidence to both himself and the side.
b) hasn't really happened as we know all too well and as "grafting" is not Bouazza's strength and the Brum rumour has been about for a while Parky was, I suspect, fully reconciled to his departure.
It is also probable that even with Fulham's contribution Bouazza is among our more highly paid so he may even be able to get two players in with what he saves for the "matrix" or whatever they are calling the budget.
Pace and strength aplenty and his delivery is useful too
I wonder why they didn't suggest Ambrose will come in on the left? I'm sure that's what we would have done in the past with Pardew here. Do they speak to the manager when they write these previews?
But I feel this a big blow because he is one of the few players that could create his own offense. His shooting was poor, but he is explosive and generates strong opportunities.
Charlton could become an even more pedestrian offensive club without him.
I would rather have ZZ than Bouazza. I would have liked to have been able to have had both.
Unless we get in one of the talented youngsters from Arsenal, or get another Premier-calibre player with flaws like Bouazza, this one could hurt.
Undoubtedly talented, in a squad that is challenging for promotion the type of player you want. However we're in a dogfight and we desperately need battlers who'll fight for every ball and Bouazza is not that type of player.
How many times have people said on this site they want a "Robinson" or "Brown". Well that looks very much what Parky wants too.
"I thought he was a promising young player; quick, direct, knows the English system and can do a job when team work is required.
"He has done very well at Charlton.
"It was made clear to me that there was a clause that would allow him to move in January. I know Charlton probably feel aggrieved at it but we've done nothing wrong."
So by saying he ha don nothing wrong he is saying that he actually shafted us ... nice
Agreed.The bloke doesn't fit into the way we need to be playing at the moment in my humble opinion.
Yep that's just never going to happen. Fine having one inconsistent winger, but we'd probably be better off with one on one wing, and a Robinson/Stuart/Konchesky type player on the other wing. A bit more intelligence and better defensively to make up for the lack of pace and skill.
He's been inconsistent, he hasn't looked like he's worked very hard, and his shooting has been pretty poor.
But he's still shown more signs of the type of quality that could yet have won us a few games. One player it would have been good for us to able to keep in the squad, I think.
No point in moaning about it, vote with your feet, (so to speak) just don't buy any of their porno!!....;o)
on one side he has scored a few goals for us (esp if you go away - with the strikes at Brum and Sheff U being in our top 5 goals so far this season)
on the other he missed a couple of sitters (Derby ?) which would have given us afew more points & he was a bad boy at Blackpool - giving the finger to the faithful that made the trip north.
All in all I would rather have kept him, but once again us and the loan system hasn't really worked out.
Quite worrying we are back down to only 3 loans now- Waghorn/Murty/McEveley.