Harry Kane

Addick Addict said:

Manic_mania said:

According to Wikipedia Parker played 15 games for Chelsea in a season and a half. Not sure how many were starts. 

Don't think there's any doubt he cut short all his momentum that season to sit on Chelsea's bench for 18 months.

But you can't judge a player's career by 18 months can you? He might never have got that move. We might never have got £10m for him which helped us to fund the purchase of players in no small measure. We might never have qualified for Europe. It is all hypothetical. 

There's a lad who was playing for our first team at the start of the season and who has now been released. Nobody really cares what that's done to him bar himself, his friends and family. Yes plenty will wish him well but that is as far as it goes. That might well, ultimately, be the right decision for all parties but we don't know. However, the notion that the whole episode of being put in the first team, out of position and then sent packing six months later isn't likely to harm the lad's mental state and confidence is a fallacy. He wasn't good enough in our eyes so it doesn't matter. But a Parker or a James Beadle and we are up in arms. 

The point is that a football club has no more obligation to the career of a footballer than a footballer has to us. It is not a one way street. 

Manic_mania said:

Addick Addict said:

Manic_mania said:

According to Wikipedia Parker played 15 games for Chelsea in a season and a half. Not sure how many were starts. 

Don't think there's any doubt he cut short all his momentum that season to sit on Chelsea's bench for 18 months.

But you can't judge a player's career by 18 months can you? He might never have got that move. We might never have got £10m for him which helped us to fund the purchase of players in no small measure. We might never have qualified for Europe. It is all hypothetical. 

There's a lad who was playing for our first team at the start of the season and who has now been released. Nobody really cares what that's done to him bar himself, his friends and family. Yes plenty will wish him well but that is as far as it goes. That might well, ultimately, be the right decision for all parties but we don't know. However, the notion that the whole episode of being put in the first team, out of position and then sent packing six months later isn't likely to harm the lad's mental state and confidence is a fallacy. He wasn't good enough in our eyes so it doesn't matter. But a Parker or a James Beadle and we are up in arms. 

The point is that a football club has no more obligation to the career of a footballer than a footballer has to us. It is not a one way street. 

Not judging his career. Just that 18 month period. I don't know how anyone can argue that he was in outstanding form and he cut that short to sit on Chelseas bench. I don't think he ever recaptured that form either but that's a question of opinion tbh.

Addick Addict said:

Algarveaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

Todds_right_hook said:

Algarveaddick said:

Great player, brilliant for England, we are lucky to have him. I admire his loyalty to Spurs, I don't recall too many on CL cheering Parker leaving because he needed to win trophies? 

"Needing" to win trophies is a cliche used by greedy players and covetous managers and has now permeated into the psyche of too many football fans. 

Well done Harry!   

I really don't think the Parker comparison is fair. Parker left us at age 22? For a pay day. He could have stayed with us to finish the job, get us into Europe and go with England to a major tournament in the summer, then leave. 

I think Sven said at the time that if he was playing regular football, he would have been in the England squad. Parker chose £ and to sit on a bench.

kane has given spurs loyal service and they have won 0 with a final or two and champions league football along the way. 

Kane is nearly 30 and if he leave spurs in the summer, it's to have a serious shot at winning silverware and not driven by ££. Well done hary kane for being loyal and achieving what he has achieved.

Parker left us when he was 23 years and 105 days old. Approximately. He played 145 games for us and still ended up playing another 450 career games despite only supposedly leaving to sit on the bench. We got £10m for him. How many other players have we sold for that? Others leave at the age of 17 or 18 for the same reasons and we receive next to nothing. But we trust the word of a Chairman, as opposed to Parker, because it suits our agenda to do so when we know that the very same deal broke down in the previous summer. And we now say that we cannot trust that very same Chairman on almost everything else that has gone on at CAFC in the last decade. But it's all Parker's fault. Even Curbs disagrees with that one. 

Who's fault does Curbs say it is, and why? 

I said that Curbs doesn't think that it was "all Parker's fault". Chelsea made a bid. Curbs knew that he would be going that window. And Parker could have handled the situation better himself but he was reacting to what he perceived was a broken promise.

“It was a terrible time,” said ­Curbishley. “We were fourth from top at the time, we had a really good side and he was obviously a major part of it. It was an unwelcome bid, which wasn’t good enough. It was a fraught couple of week and in that time me and Scotty did fall out, but it was inevitable that he was going to go.

“I felt that when he went to Chelsea he was maybe trying too hard to prove himself. But he got himself back on track at ­Newcastle and, as soon as I got the chance to sign him again for West Ham, that’s what I did."

The players understood the situation that Parker found himself in. Matt Holland said:

“Us as a group of players could totally understand it. When Chelsea come knocking and are willing to pay £10m for someone then you have to understand that player’s situation.

“I certainly, and I’m sure the rest of the team, understood it as well.”

Curbs forgave him. The person that Parker's departure impacted the most but still signed him. Bowyer could not have made more of Taylor's refusal to play but what did he do before even the ink on his departure to Forest had dried? Signed him for Birmingham. Because they understand what can and does go on in a pro's life. Whether they are stars or ones consigned to the "let go" bin. And I wouldn't mind betting you that some of those who hold Taylor so accountable for our relegation would still sign him right now given the opportunity. 

And for every James Beadle there is a Harry Beadle. Trouble is we always want it both ways. 

Addick Addict said:

Algarveaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

Algarveaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

Todds_right_hook said:

Algarveaddick said:

Great player, brilliant for England, we are lucky to have him. I admire his loyalty to Spurs, I don't recall too many on CL cheering Parker leaving because he needed to win trophies? 

"Needing" to win trophies is a cliche used by greedy players and covetous managers and has now permeated into the psyche of too many football fans. 

Well done Harry!   

I really don't think the Parker comparison is fair. Parker left us at age 22? For a pay day. He could have stayed with us to finish the job, get us into Europe and go with England to a major tournament in the summer, then leave. 

I think Sven said at the time that if he was playing regular football, he would have been in the England squad. Parker chose £ and to sit on a bench.

kane has given spurs loyal service and they have won 0 with a final or two and champions league football along the way. 

Kane is nearly 30 and if he leave spurs in the summer, it's to have a serious shot at winning silverware and not driven by ££. Well done hary kane for being loyal and achieving what he has achieved.

Parker left us when he was 23 years and 105 days old. Approximately. He played 145 games for us and still ended up playing another 450 career games despite only supposedly leaving to sit on the bench. We got £10m for him. How many other players have we sold for that? Others leave at the age of 17 or 18 for the same reasons and we receive next to nothing. But we trust the word of a Chairman, as opposed to Parker, because it suits our agenda to do so when we know that the very same deal broke down in the previous summer. And we now say that we cannot trust that very same Chairman on almost everything else that has gone on at CAFC in the last decade. But it's all Parker's fault. Even Curbs disagrees with that one. 

Who's fault does Curbs say it is, and why? 

I said that Curbs doesn't think that it was "all Parker's fault". Chelsea made a bid. Curbs knew that he would be going that window. And Parker could have handled the situation better himself but he was reacting to what he perceived was a broken promise.

“It was a terrible time,” said ­Curbishley. “We were fourth from top at the time, we had a really good side and he was obviously a major part of it. It was an unwelcome bid, which wasn’t good enough. It was a fraught couple of week and in that time me and Scotty did fall out, but it was inevitable that he was going to go.

“I felt that when he went to Chelsea he was maybe trying too hard to prove himself. But he got himself back on track at ­Newcastle and, as soon as I got the chance to sign him again for West Ham, that’s what I did."

The players understood the situation that Parker found himself in. Matt Holland said:

“Us as a group of players could totally understand it. When Chelsea come knocking and are willing to pay £10m for someone then you have to understand that player’s situation.

“I certainly, and I’m sure the rest of the team, understood it as well.”

Curbs forgave him. The person that Parker's departure impacted the most but still signed him. Bowyer could not have made more of Taylor's refusal to play but what did he do before even the ink on his departure to Forest had dried? Signed him for Birmingham. Because they understand what can and does go on in a pro's life. Whether they are stars or ones consigned to the "let go" bin. And I wouldn't mind betting you that some of those who hold Taylor so accountable for our relegation would still sign him right now given the opportunity. 

And for every James Beadle there is a Harry Beadle. Trouble is we always want it both ways. 

Sorry to be pedantic, but Curbs does not suggest it is anyone elses fault in that statement, neither does he suggest that he knew he would be going in the window "It was an unwelcome bid, which wasn’t good enough." To me that does not say he expected him to go?

Anyway, as I have explained to JaShea99, I was talking about the difference between Charlton fan's attitude to Kane and their attitude to Parker, not the difference between Kane and Parker. The same could have been said of any Addick who left to go to a bigger club and we moaned about it while pundits said "He has gone somewhere he can win trophies".        

He actually says that "it was inevitable that he was going to go". No bid from Chelsea, no move.

Dazzler21 said:

Manic_mania said:

Addick Addict said:

Manic_mania said:

According to Wikipedia Parker played 15 games for Chelsea in a season and a half. Not sure how many were starts. 

Don't think there's any doubt he cut short all his momentum that season to sit on Chelsea's bench for 18 months.

But you can't judge a player's career by 18 months can you? He might never have got that move. We might never have got £10m for him which helped us to fund the purchase of players in no small measure. We might never have qualified for Europe. It is all hypothetical. 

There's a lad who was playing for our first team at the start of the season and who has now been released. Nobody really cares what that's done to him bar himself, his friends and family. Yes plenty will wish him well but that is as far as it goes. That might well, ultimately, be the right decision for all parties but we don't know. However, the notion that the whole episode of being put in the first team, out of position and then sent packing six months later isn't likely to harm the lad's mental state and confidence is a fallacy. He wasn't good enough in our eyes so it doesn't matter. But a Parker or a James Beadle and we are up in arms. 

The point is that a football club has no more obligation to the career of a footballer than a footballer has to us. It is not a one way street. 

Not judging his career. Just that 18 month period. I don't know how anyone can argue that he was in outstanding form and he cut that short to sit on Chelseas bench. I don't think he ever recaptured that form either but that's a question of opinion tbh.

He played 11 of the games January to Summer in the league, starting 7 and subbed on 4 times. 

He also started 4 Champions league games and was subbed on for 1. 

He had one appearance against Arsenal in the FA cup too. So that is 17 appearances. 12 starts.

He played 13 starting 11 of his remaining games in all comps the following season.