Scott Parker

usetobunkin said:

johnnybev1987 said:

usetobunkin said:

Silly greedy boy, left us to sit on Chelsea bench. Never forgive him for doing that to us.

Some people need to be realistic, given the chance would you not take a 10x  (rough guess) pay rise? Also better opportunity to play for England back then, although it didn't work out. 

Yes we might have made Europe with him but you cant grudge someone for leaving in some circumstances, i am biased as he has always been my fave player and when i first started following Charlton, also met him so helps my judgement. 

Remember Curbs saying when the offer came from in from Chelsea, he started acting up. He knew we all idolised him! But to him it was better to sit on a bench for 10k a week more, than play for us. 
Has never ever acknowledged the help and support given by Charlton Academy or Curbs, it was ALL ABOUT HIM!

Scott Parker left Charlton for Chelsea in a £10m deal yesterday, and then claimed he had been promised a move to a Champions League club.

He said that when he signed an extended five-year, £15,000-a-week deal at The Valley last summer, the chairman Richard Murray agreed to let him leave for one of the Premiership's Champions League clubs.

Though that became a reality when Parker signed a 4-year deal at Stamford Bridge, the transfer was not without ill feeling, and although he insisted he would prefer to avoid a dispute with his former manager, his words contradicted Alan Curbishley's.

During one of several acrimonious exchanges that preceded the transfer, Curbishley denied that any such agreement had been reached with Parker.

"What Alan said wasn't really fair but I don't want to get in a war of words with him," said Parker. "I can understand where he's coming from and although I don't really want to have to go over how the last three weeks have happened, all I can say is that at Charlton when I signed my five-year contract I was promised that if a top-three club came in for me they would sell me. That was the issue. I was promised by the club, by the chairman." 

As a result of Parker signing that contract we got twice the amount that had been agreed with Chelsea the previous summer.  That £10m 15 years ago is probably the equivalent of £30m now - 10 times what we got for Gomez and 20 times what we have just received for Grant. 

And he wouldn't have been at the Club for the first half of that season anyway. So if he was to blame for not taking us into Europe then we should thank him for carrying us to those heady heights 'til he did leave.

Chizz said:

Dazzler21 said:

Chizz said:

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

He was a brilliant player, of that there is simply no doubt.  And I am sure he will make a good manager.  But for anyone to defend the way in which he left the club is laughable. 

As if anyone else at his age in his position wouldn't demand everything they could get.

Seriously so many holier than thou types when it comes to this kind of behaviour.

Remember that he had demanded - and got - everything he wanted, when he signed a new, five-year contract five months prior to walking away. 

Brilliant player. But greedy, selfish and disloyal. I'm not sure how he could be seen as anything else. 

Addick Addict said:

Chizz said:

Dazzler21 said:

Chizz said:

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

He was a brilliant player, of that there is simply no doubt.  And I am sure he will make a good manager.  But for anyone to defend the way in which he left the club is laughable. 

As if anyone else at his age in his position wouldn't demand everything they could get.

Seriously so many holier than thou types when it comes to this kind of behaviour.

Remember that he had demanded - and got - everything he wanted, when he signed a new, five-year contract five months prior to walking away. 

Brilliant player. But greedy, selfish and disloyal. I'm not sure how he could be seen as anything else. 

We only have one player on our books who has been at the Club as long as Parker was with us - and Solly would have been long gone had it not been for his dodgy knee.

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

But we never hear about those do we?

Addick Addict said:

Chizz said:

Addick Addict said:

Chizz said:

Dazzler21 said:

Chizz said:

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

He was a brilliant player, of that there is simply no doubt.  And I am sure he will make a good manager.  But for anyone to defend the way in which he left the club is laughable. 

As if anyone else at his age in his position wouldn't demand everything they could get.

Seriously so many holier than thou types when it comes to this kind of behaviour.

Remember that he had demanded - and got - everything he wanted, when he signed a new, five-year contract five months prior to walking away. 

Brilliant player. But greedy, selfish and disloyal. I'm not sure how he could be seen as anything else. 

We only have one player on our books who has been at the Club as long as Parker was with us - and Solly would have been long gone had it not been for his dodgy knee.

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

But we never hear about those do we?

Well, in fairness, this is the "Scott Parker" thread. 

A rather irrelevant comment but then, I suspect, you know that - because it's like saying that no player or player's circumstances can ever be compared to another on any one thread.

Chizz said:

Addick Addict said:

Chizz said:

Addick Addict said:

Chizz said:

Addick Addict said:

Chizz said:

Dazzler21 said:

Chizz said:

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

He was a brilliant player, of that there is simply no doubt.  And I am sure he will make a good manager.  But for anyone to defend the way in which he left the club is laughable. 

As if anyone else at his age in his position wouldn't demand everything they could get.

Seriously so many holier than thou types when it comes to this kind of behaviour.

Remember that he had demanded - and got - everything he wanted, when he signed a new, five-year contract five months prior to walking away. 

Brilliant player. But greedy, selfish and disloyal. I'm not sure how he could be seen as anything else. 

We only have one player on our books who has been at the Club as long as Parker was with us - and Solly would have been long gone had it not been for his dodgy knee.

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

But we never hear about those do we?

Well, in fairness, this is the "Scott Parker" thread. 

A rather irrelevant comment but then, I suspect, you know that - because it's like saying that no player or player's circumstances can ever be compared to another on any one thread.

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

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

That doesn't make him a bad player: he was a brilliant player.  And none of the other greedy, selfish and disloyal players were anywhere near as good as him.  Likewise, none of the other brilliant players have been as greedy, selfish and disloyal.  There!  I have compared him to every player that's ever played for us! 

But he wasn't for the reasons I've stated previously - signing that contract helped us every much as it helped him. So, by definition, we were as greedy in getting £10m for a player who, prior to signing that contract, we would only have received half that.

If every single player gave for us on the pitch all that Scott Parker did we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But he is still being vilified because, without one shred of legitimate proof (because he might have been injured/lost form or the team as a whole, as it invariably did under Curbs, might have lost form come January anyway), it was all his fault that we didn't get into Europe. 

I haven't vilified him. I haven't blamed him for us not getting into Europe.  I haven't claimed that Charlton weren't also exhibiting a form of greed.  He was a brilliant player.  I think he'd have been an even better player had he not made that move at that time (we will never know).  I think he did everything to maximise his talent; and that he had masses of talent in the first place.  I think the way he played was exceptional.  I think the way he handled himself off the pitch throughout the time prior to the move was exceptional.  He was someone of whom I was very proud, from the time I saw him in the McDonalds ad and the time I saw him sign his first professional contract on the pitch at the Valley and the time he played for England at U16, U18, U21 and full International level. He exhibited everything a model professional should exhibit during his whole career at Charlton. 

I've simply stated he was greedy, selfish and disloyal at the time of his move.  And I am right. 

Addick Addict said:

Chizz said:

Addick Addict said:

Chizz said:

Addick Addict said:

Chizz said:

Addick Addict said:

Chizz said:

Dazzler21 said:

Chizz said:

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

He was a brilliant player, of that there is simply no doubt.  And I am sure he will make a good manager.  But for anyone to defend the way in which he left the club is laughable. 

As if anyone else at his age in his position wouldn't demand everything they could get.

Seriously so many holier than thou types when it comes to this kind of behaviour.

Remember that he had demanded - and got - everything he wanted, when he signed a new, five-year contract five months prior to walking away. 

Brilliant player. But greedy, selfish and disloyal. I'm not sure how he could be seen as anything else. 

We only have one player on our books who has been at the Club as long as Parker was with us - and Solly would have been long gone had it not been for his dodgy knee.

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

But we never hear about those do we?

Well, in fairness, this is the "Scott Parker" thread. 

A rather irrelevant comment but then, I suspect, you know that - because it's like saying that no player or player's circumstances can ever be compared to another on any one thread.

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

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

That doesn't make him a bad player: he was a brilliant player.  And none of the other greedy, selfish and disloyal players were anywhere near as good as him.  Likewise, none of the other brilliant players have been as greedy, selfish and disloyal.  There!  I have compared him to every player that's ever played for us! 

But he wasn't for the reasons I've stated previously - signing that contract helped us every much as it helped him. So, by definition, we were as greedy in getting £10m for a player who, prior to signing that contract, we would only have received half that.

If every single player gave for us on the pitch all that Scott Parker did we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But he is still being vilified because, without one shred of legitimate proof (because he might have been injured/lost form or the team as a whole, as it invariably did under Curbs, might have lost form come January anyway), it was all his fault that we didn't get into Europe. 

I haven't vilified him. I haven't blamed him for us not getting into Europe.  I haven't claimed that Charlton weren't also exhibiting a form of greed.  He was a brilliant player.  I think he'd have been an even better player had he not made that move at that time (we will never know).  I think he did everything to maximise his talent; and that he had masses of talent in the first place.  I think the way he played was exceptional.  I think the way he handled himself off the pitch throughout the time prior to the move was exceptional.  He was someone of whom I was very proud, from the time I saw him in the McDonalds ad and the time I saw him sign his first professional contract on the pitch at the Valley and the time he played for England at U16, U18, U21 and full International level. He exhibited everything a model professional should exhibit during his whole career at Charlton. 

I've simply stated he was greedy, selfish and disloyal at the time of his move.  And I am right. 

No - because he signed a contract on the basis that, should a top 3 club come in for him, he would be allowed to go. His argument is that the Club were disloyal to him in not automatically honouring that undertaking. And he became the convenient scapegoat for something that, as I say, no one can prove would actually have happened - us getting into Europe. 

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

"I was disappointed, we were fourth in the League and probably had the best team Charlton have had," he said. "It was bad timing for everybody, but I sent Scott a letter straight after the transfer expressing how much I appreciated what he did for me and the club."

Chizz said:

Addick Addict said:

Chizz said:

Addick Addict said:

Chizz said:

Addick Addict said:

Chizz said:

Addick Addict said:

Chizz said:

Dazzler21 said:

Chizz said:

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

He was a brilliant player, of that there is simply no doubt.  And I am sure he will make a good manager.  But for anyone to defend the way in which he left the club is laughable. 

As if anyone else at his age in his position wouldn't demand everything they could get.

Seriously so many holier than thou types when it comes to this kind of behaviour.

Remember that he had demanded - and got - everything he wanted, when he signed a new, five-year contract five months prior to walking away. 

Brilliant player. But greedy, selfish and disloyal. I'm not sure how he could be seen as anything else. 

We only have one player on our books who has been at the Club as long as Parker was with us - and Solly would have been long gone had it not been for his dodgy knee.

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

But we never hear about those do we?

Well, in fairness, this is the "Scott Parker" thread. 

A rather irrelevant comment but then, I suspect, you know that - because it's like saying that no player or player's circumstances can ever be compared to another on any one thread.

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

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

That doesn't make him a bad player: he was a brilliant player.  And none of the other greedy, selfish and disloyal players were anywhere near as good as him.  Likewise, none of the other brilliant players have been as greedy, selfish and disloyal.  There!  I have compared him to every player that's ever played for us! 

But he wasn't for the reasons I've stated previously - signing that contract helped us every much as it helped him. So, by definition, we were as greedy in getting £10m for a player who, prior to signing that contract, we would only have received half that.

If every single player gave for us on the pitch all that Scott Parker did we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But he is still being vilified because, without one shred of legitimate proof (because he might have been injured/lost form or the team as a whole, as it invariably did under Curbs, might have lost form come January anyway), it was all his fault that we didn't get into Europe. 

I haven't vilified him. I haven't blamed him for us not getting into Europe.  I haven't claimed that Charlton weren't also exhibiting a form of greed.  He was a brilliant player.  I think he'd have been an even better player had he not made that move at that time (we will never know).  I think he did everything to maximise his talent; and that he had masses of talent in the first place.  I think the way he played was exceptional.  I think the way he handled himself off the pitch throughout the time prior to the move was exceptional.  He was someone of whom I was very proud, from the time I saw him in the McDonalds ad and the time I saw him sign his first professional contract on the pitch at the Valley and the time he played for England at U16, U18, U21 and full International level. He exhibited everything a model professional should exhibit during his whole career at Charlton. 

I've simply stated he was greedy, selfish and disloyal at the time of his move.  And I am right. 

No - because he signed a contract on the basis that, should a top 3 club come in for him, he would be allowed to go. His argument is that the Club were disloyal to him in not automatically honouring that undertaking. And he became the convenient scapegoat for something that, as I say, no one can prove would actually have happened - us getting into Europe. 

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

"I was disappointed, we were fourth in the League and probably had the best team Charlton have had," he said. "It was bad timing for everybody, but I sent Scott a letter straight after the transfer expressing how much I appreciated what he did for me and the club."

And yet, the "clause" that Parker later claimed to have been in place was denied by the club.  What in fact happened was Curbishley had told Parker that "if you leave [Charlton] they [top three clubs] are the clubs you should go to". Parker claimed he believed that to have been an undertaking by the club that should a "top three" club make an offer, he would be sold.  And, at the time, Chelsea were not one of the "top three" Curbishley referenced.  He had said Arsenal, Liverpool or Manchester United. 

He confronted the Chairman, with his hair still wet from the shower, straight after the game against Wolves, demanding to know what had happened with his move, because he had been tapped up the day before.  He acted so petulantly and disruptively, he had to be dropped from the game at Everton a few days later.  The "clause" was a fantasy - neither he or his agent had anything in writing or anything inserted in his (few weeks old) contract.  He was greedy, selfish and disloyal.  That's not unique among footballers.  But it's true of Parker, at that time, nonetheless. 

I don't think he should have gone to Chelsea at that time.  And I can point to the fact that, despite being desperate to go there, he ended up playing fewer games for Chelsea than for England.  He should have stayed at Charlton and seen the seeason out.  He'd have been a better player and ended up with a better move. I think he could have partnered Gerrard in midfield at Anfield, instead of sitting, watching Makalele partnering Lampard at Stamford Bridge. But he acted in a greedy, selfish and disloyal way; and that's how a lot of people remember him. 

It's a pity, because he was more than that.  Much more. 

Robbo on the wing said:

Mametz said:

Robbo on the wing said:

To receive a record defeat in the league would raise a wry smile on my face.
To lose his job as a follow on, would release a big grin.
Blokes a tosser for what he done to us.
Pretty much broke my heart when he single handedly screwed what dreams I dared think imaginable of what Charlton could achieve.
Think of what Leicester supporters dreamt the other season.
OK, not winning the league, but being in the top four mix.

We will never get that again, and that greedy cunt was a major part of it.

Remember he was on a million a year.

How much more does a man with morals require?

Presumably, as a man of morals, you run your life according to a strict code. Someone like you would never waste money on triffles, such as paying to watch football, when you could donate that money to help starving children or to ensure that every every human being in the world has access to clean drinking water.

My money will never change that.
That is a bigger social issue that I would happily assist with if possible.
I like to think I did (in a small part) whilst travelling through SE Asia in the late 80s, and rather than accepting families in obvious poverty offering prostitution, try to offer my friendship by playing football with the village children and treating them to ice cream, as that was all I could afford.
I actually made sure the team who looked like winning be called Charlton, whereas the team I didn't, be called Millwall.
So remind me again about morals

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Were Chelsea even a Top 3 club at the time?