[cite]Posted By: c4fcdenmark[/cite]Cheers Oggy Red, well argued and I agree with your observations about the state Charlton found itself in. Parkinson could and should have done better.
Anyway, always interested in views other than my own and I guess we can agree to disagree on some things.
Cheers too, Denmark. Sorry my post was of War & Peace proportions - and I hope you didn't need a toilet break - but as you say, it's all about opinions, that's why we're here. ;o)
My post just tried to get insight into the state of the club, mentality of team & players, and how it was truly rock bottom in every sense of the word when Parky took over.
Personally, I think Parkinsella did the best he could with the resources available; no doubt he made mistakes too - but nobody has a road map in this situation. He gave it his best shot, and kept his dignity. Respect.
If you still feel differently, then your attention should perhaps be aimed at the decision making at Board level - but again everybody from the Chair to the tea lady has done what they thought was their best at the time. And so too have most of the players, most of the time.
Having said that, that doesn't mean I necessarily think that Parkinsella is the best option to now carry us forward.
But if they should be retained, I feel it's better we support them, rather than undermine.
Oggy rumour was and is Burton was off to Chelmsford to play for them at £3,000 a week but we offered him £7,500 a week ------------ this may have something therefre to do with him "wanting" to play for us !
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]Oggy rumour was and is Burton was off to Chelmsford to play for them at £3,000 a week but we offered him £7,500 a week
this may have something therefre to do with him "wanting" to play for us !
Maybe you're right, GH ........ but you couldn't blame anybody for taking the chance to double their wages.
And it was put on a silver platter for him!
My point was that Burton was apparently all that was available - and if the club didn't take their chance, then quite possibly there was simply nobody else available at that time
.
Despite his lack of goal scoring prowess (Norwich hat trick match aside!), Burton is nevertheless an experienced, hard working, neat & tidy player - with a good team attitude. You can see why Parky thought he would be a useful addition to the squad.
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]My point was that Burton was apparently all that was available - and if the club didn't take their chance, then quite possibly there was simply nobody else available at that time
Nobody + cash would have been better than Burton though surely?
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]Oggy rumour was and is Burton was off to Chelmsford to play for them at £3,000 a week but we offered him £7,500 a week
this may have something therefre to do with him "wanting" to play for us !
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]Oggy rumour was and is Burton was off to Chelmsford to play for them at £3,000 a week but we offered him £7,500 a week
this may have something therefre to do with him "wanting" to play for us !
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]Oggy rumour was and is Burton was off to Chelmsford to play for them at £3,000 a week but we offered him £7,500 a week
this may have something therefre to do with him "wanting" to play for us !
Not the way I heard it at all. Ditto Spring.
Tell us more, Henry ...... ???
No, but let's just say that when a manager is trying to attract permanent signings but can offer only a relatively low wage and the likelihood of relegation, which would spark a pay cut, his options are some what limited.
Football contracts run to 30 June before they expire in general. That means we still have to pay the big earners until then.
Given that fact and our parlous financial state which is in part because of those relatively high wages, it is no surprise to me nobody has come in yet irrespective of whether Parky stays or goes.
I very much doubt that is the reason, they could sign precontracts, etc. Assuming we had a management in place, with a 'go ahead' for next season, they probably can't sign any freebies cos they are still in contract elsewhere.
Let's wait 'til a week before the season starts and save on the salaries. There's bound to be hundreds of decent players still scratching around looking for something to do/someone to play for!
[cite]Posted By: wickford[/cite]Let's wait 'til a week before the season starts and save on the salaries. There's bound to be hundreds of decent players still scratching around looking for something to do/someone to play for!
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]The way it stands at the moment none of us are sure if when the season kicks off we will have the same team, board or manager !
Ffs - I wish people would stop going on about how getting rid of high earners will somehow free up cash for other wages. It won't.
In case you haven't worked it out yet our income will be DRAMATICALLY reduced next year, so it's more a question of shipping out high earners or we're fucked.
Parky brought in two strikers, one permanently, yet consistently played only one upfront and has gone on record as saying we need to strengthen this area next year. If he couldn't get the two he shipped in to play together:-
a) why bring them both in? b) will his judgement be better with new purchases?
Also many of his loanees, so-called successes like Murty and McEverley, and others like Soares were clearly not fit when signed but he played them anyway. Why?
[cite]Posted By: Addickson's God[/cite]Parky brought in two strikers, one permanently, yet consistently played only one upfront and has gone on record as saying we need to strengthen this area next year. If he couldn't get the two he shipped in to play together:-
a) why bring them both in?
b) will his judgement be better with new purchases?
Also many of his loanees, so-called successes like Murty and McEverley, and others like Soares were clearly not fit when signed but he played them anyway. Why?
Because by then we had Zheng and Racon fit, then Shelvey turned pro, the best 11 we could play was in a 4-5-1. We were playing 4-4-2 before and not really getting anywhere.
He was doing what he could to try and keep us up. If he didn't sign anyone, we'd all say Parkinson's biggest mistake was not even attempting to improve the squad. We'd be saying 'why didn't he go for that player Forest/Blackpool/whoever got on loan, he did well for them.'
He had no money to buy players, not many players are available on free transfers in January, loans were our only option. Most players available for loan are either unfit due to injury, young players or just not playing regular football (so probably unfit as well).
If we got rid of all the threads on this forum from the last 3 months that have ended up with a discussion on parky's signings, then we would only be left with 'would ya's' and takeover rumours. ;0)
i thought oggy's war and peace re-write was pretty much spot on though.
I'm looking forward to the pre-season optimism hitting this place... and it will.
[cite]Posted By: Addickson's God[/cite]Parky brought in two strikers, one permanently, yet consistently played only one upfront and has gone on record as saying we need to strengthen this area next year. If he couldn't get the two he shipped in to play together:-
a) why bring them both in?
b) will his judgement be better with new purchases?
Also many of his loanees, so-called successes like Murty and McEverley, and others like Soares were clearly not fit when signed but he played them anyway. Why?
Because by then we had Zheng and Racon fit, then Shelvey turned pro, the best 11 we could play was in a 4-5-1. We were playing 4-4-2 before and not really getting anywhere.
He was doing what he could to try and keep us up. If he didn't sign anyone, we'd all say Parkinson's biggest mistake was not even attempting to improve the squad. We'd be saying 'why didn't he go for that player Forest/Blackpool/whoever got on loan, he did well for them.'
He had no money to buy players, not many players are available on free transfers in January, loans were our only option. Most players available for loan are either unfit due to injury, young players or just not playing regular football (so probably unfit as well).
unless you are DJ Campbell or Dextor Blackstock, both better than what we signed and yet signed by our relegation 'rivals'. And he could have signed Bradley Wright-Philips instead but didn't.
[cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]unless you are DJ Campbell or Dextor Blackstock, both better than what we signed and yet signed by our relegation 'rivals'. And he could have signed Bradley Wright-Philips instead but didn't.
It's not as if any of those players are proven goalscorers.
Not like Parkinson can read the future though, and neither could we. DJ Campbell had only scored goals regularly in non-league, and a decent record, but in a very short spell in League One with Brentford (bit like Dickson perhaps). Like Kandol, there was a reason he was available for loan from a League One club, because they didn't think he was good enough.
Blackstock scored twice for Forest, hardly the goals that kept them up. Played a part yes but it was much more about the team than an outstanding loan signing. Doesn't have a history of scoring goals regularly.
Comments
Anyway, always interested in views other than my own and I guess we can agree to disagree on some things.
Cheers too, Denmark. Sorry my post was of War & Peace proportions - and I hope you didn't need a toilet break - but as you say, it's all about opinions, that's why we're here. ;o)
My post just tried to get insight into the state of the club, mentality of team & players, and how it was truly rock bottom in every sense of the word when Parky took over.
Personally, I think Parkinsella did the best he could with the resources available; no doubt he made mistakes too - but nobody has a road map in this situation. He gave it his best shot, and kept his dignity. Respect.
If you still feel differently, then your attention should perhaps be aimed at the decision making at Board level - but again everybody from the Chair to the tea lady has done what they thought was their best at the time. And so too have most of the players, most of the time.
Having said that, that doesn't mean I necessarily think that Parkinsella is the best option to now carry us forward.
But if they should be retained, I feel it's better we support them, rather than undermine.
Maybe you're right, GH ........ but you couldn't blame anybody for taking the chance to double their wages.
And it was put on a silver platter for him!
My point was that Burton was apparently all that was available - and if the club didn't take their chance, then quite possibly there was simply nobody else available at that time
.
Despite his lack of goal scoring prowess (Norwich hat trick match aside!), Burton is nevertheless an experienced, hard working, neat & tidy player - with a good team attitude. You can see why Parky thought he would be a useful addition to the squad.
Nobody + cash would have been better than Burton though surely?
Not the way I heard it at all. Ditto Spring.
Tell us more, Henry ...... ???
No, but let's just say that when a manager is trying to attract permanent signings but can offer only a relatively low wage and the likelihood of relegation, which would spark a pay cut, his options are some what limited.
Henry, how come you managed to say it in just one sentence ......? lol
Given that fact and our parlous financial state which is in part because of those relatively high wages, it is no surprise to me nobody has come in yet irrespective of whether Parky stays or goes.
Yeah and at least 24 hours to gel as a team !
:0
The Board don't know.
Nor do the players.
And definitely not the manager ...... !
;o)
In case you haven't worked it out yet our income will be DRAMATICALLY reduced next year, so it's more a question of shipping out high earners or we're fucked.
a) why bring them both in?
b) will his judgement be better with new purchases?
Also many of his loanees, so-called successes like Murty and McEverley, and others like Soares were clearly not fit when signed but he played them anyway. Why?
Because by then we had Zheng and Racon fit, then Shelvey turned pro, the best 11 we could play was in a 4-5-1. We were playing 4-4-2 before and not really getting anywhere.
He was doing what he could to try and keep us up. If he didn't sign anyone, we'd all say Parkinson's biggest mistake was not even attempting to improve the squad. We'd be saying 'why didn't he go for that player Forest/Blackpool/whoever got on loan, he did well for them.'
He had no money to buy players, not many players are available on free transfers in January, loans were our only option. Most players available for loan are either unfit due to injury, young players or just not playing regular football (so probably unfit as well).
i thought oggy's war and peace re-write was pretty much spot on though.
I'm looking forward to the pre-season optimism hitting this place... and it will.
unless you are DJ Campbell or Dextor Blackstock, both better than what we signed and yet signed by our relegation 'rivals'. And he could have signed Bradley Wright-Philips instead but didn't.
It's not as if any of those players are proven goalscorers.
Not like Parkinson can read the future though, and neither could we. DJ Campbell had only scored goals regularly in non-league, and a decent record, but in a very short spell in League One with Brentford (bit like Dickson perhaps). Like Kandol, there was a reason he was available for loan from a League One club, because they didn't think he was good enough.
Blackstock scored twice for Forest, hardly the goals that kept them up. Played a part yes but it was much more about the team than an outstanding loan signing. Doesn't have a history of scoring goals regularly.
Didn't realise Wright-Phillips was available, did Southampton put him up for loan or make him available for nothing? If we signed him we'd be moaning Parkinson signed a player that gets drunk, gets into fights and likes to steal money and mobile phones from bars.
Just saying looking back we didn't sign the right players, but it wasn't clear at the time who the right players were.