Parker-'I love everything about that club'
Comments
-
Don't see why you have to justify your "passion" to anyone.Addick Addict said:
Yes but not as much as the day we picked up a leaflet upon arrival at the Stoke game telling us that this would be the last game at the Valley.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
And our best player; the fulcrum of our side and the way we played, walking out in January when we were 4th in the table and with a once in a lifetime shot at Europe.Addick Addict said:
I do have passion for things that matter.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
AA, I don't mean this to sound disrespectful, but your piece comes across like the passionless view of somebody utterly ambivalent that your club was close to making history only to see their chances sabotaged.Addick Addict said:I do find the argument that Parker was responsible and to blame for us not getting into Europe an interesting one.
Parker was and never has been a goalscoring midfielder in the mold of a Lampard or a Gerard - he scored just nine in 128 League games for us. He was the engine room and his asset is driving the team forward and breaking down the opposition. So we are not talking about losing a Darren Bent at the height of his abilities.
Now if we then consider where we got a large number of our points with Parker it was away from home. But look at who we still had to play on the road after he left - Arsenal (finished 1st), Chelsea (2nd ), Man United (3rd), Liverpool (4th ), Newcastle (5th), Fulham (9th), Everton (17th) and Leeds (19th).
That is an extremely hard set of fixtures. In addition, Parker might well have missed some for us through suspension or injury but, even if he hadn't, there is absolutely no doubt, because of the way he plays, he would have been a spent force at some pint in the season.
Yes we missed out by four points. One could argue on the basis of probability that, had Parker stayed, we might have bridged that gap but there is absolutely no guarantee we would have achieved the sort of results we did in his absence (away to Liverpool for example) let alone the extra points required.
So, should we really be making him such a scapegoat for destroying the European dream when there are simply so many other factors involve? And abusing him both verbally and physically in throwing coins at him won't change that situation.
Personally I care more about that than Scott Parkers hurt feelings.
I also resent the view of myself and others who share them being undermined by a lunatic minority who verbally and physically abuse Parker
Did this matter to you?
And not as much as when Killer, Paul Walsh and Paul Elliot were sold by the Club. Perhaps that taught me that players are just commodities. So to let Parker's departure fester (when we got top dollar unlike most of the time we've sold our stars of the future) with me for a decade was never going to happen.
Parker should have waited 'til the end of the season and then gone to a Newcastle or Villa where he would have been first choice and built his career from there. How much do you think we would have got by comparison from those Clubs at that time?
As the father of a young lad finding his way in another sport I have also become more aware with how professional outfits actually do or don't look after the players of the future. And for every Parker and Defoe there are thousands that have shown devotion to Charlton every step of the way only for their dream to be shattered. I'd rather waste my energies hoping that those "discards" find their way in life than become wrapped up in hating a former player who, when he was on the pitch, gave his all.
Hope that helps you to understand.1 -
Unfortunately, I can't shrug it off so easily.Addick Addict said:
Yes but .Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
And our best player; the fulcrum of our side and the way we played, walking out in January when we were 4th in the table and with a once in a lifetime shot at Europe.Addick Addict said:
I do have passion for things that matter.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
AA, I don't mean this to sound disrespectful, but your piece comes across like the passionless view of somebody utterly ambivalent that your club was close to making history only to see their chances sabotaged.Addick Addict said:I do find the argument that Parker was responsible and to blame for us not getting into Europe an interesting one.
Parker was and never has been a goalscoring midfielder in the mold of a Lampard or a Gerard - he scored just nine in 128 League games for us. He was the engine room and his asset is driving the team forward and breaking down the opposition. So we are not talking about losing a Darren Bent at the height of his abilities.
Now if we then consider where we got a large number of our points with Parker it was away from home. But look at who we still had to play on the road after he left - Arsenal (finished 1st), Chelsea (2nd ), Man United (3rd), Liverpool (4th ), Newcastle (5th), Fulham (9th), Everton (17th) and Leeds (19th).
That is an extremely hard set of fixtures. In addition, Parker might well have missed some for us through suspension or injury but, even if he hadn't, there is absolutely no doubt, because of the way he plays, he would have been a spent force at some pint in the season.
Yes we missed out by four points. One could argue on the basis of probability that, had Parker stayed, we might have bridged that gap but there is absolutely no guarantee we would have achieved the sort of results we did in his absence (away to Liverpool for example) let alone the extra points required.
So, should we really be making him such a scapegoat for destroying the European dream when there are simply so many other factors involve? And abusing him both verbally and physically in throwing coins at him won't change that situation.
Personally I care more about that than Scott Parkers hurt feelings.
I also resent the view of myself and others who share them being undermined by a lunatic minority who verbally and physically abuse Parker
Did this matter to you?
Diverting the argument towards other significant disappointments in the clubs history may help to give you perspective, but doesn't diminish the disappointment I felt and yes I suppose it still festers. I don't think I am alone in that.
I don't expect us to get another shot at Europe in my lifetime.
But clearly that matters more to me than it does to you
1 -
And what would we have done in Europe mate? Answer - we don't know, the same as we don’t know if we would have even made qualification for Europe! It's all supposition and seriously we all need to let go, I did years ago, you will feel better for it trust me :-)Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
Unfortunately, I can't shrug it off so easily.Addick Addict said:
Yes but .Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
And our best player; the fulcrum of our side and the way we played, walking out in January when we were 4th in the table and with a once in a lifetime shot at Europe.Addick Addict said:
I do have passion for things that matter.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
AA, I don't mean this to sound disrespectful, but your piece comes across like the passionless view of somebody utterly ambivalent that your club was close to making history only to see their chances sabotaged.Addick Addict said:I do find the argument that Parker was responsible and to blame for us not getting into Europe an interesting one.
Parker was and never has been a goalscoring midfielder in the mold of a Lampard or a Gerard - he scored just nine in 128 League games for us. He was the engine room and his asset is driving the team forward and breaking down the opposition. So we are not talking about losing a Darren Bent at the height of his abilities.
Now if we then consider where we got a large number of our points with Parker it was away from home. But look at who we still had to play on the road after he left - Arsenal (finished 1st), Chelsea (2nd ), Man United (3rd), Liverpool (4th ), Newcastle (5th), Fulham (9th), Everton (17th) and Leeds (19th).
That is an extremely hard set of fixtures. In addition, Parker might well have missed some for us through suspension or injury but, even if he hadn't, there is absolutely no doubt, because of the way he plays, he would have been a spent force at some pint in the season.
Yes we missed out by four points. One could argue on the basis of probability that, had Parker stayed, we might have bridged that gap but there is absolutely no guarantee we would have achieved the sort of results we did in his absence (away to Liverpool for example) let alone the extra points required.
So, should we really be making him such a scapegoat for destroying the European dream when there are simply so many other factors involve? And abusing him both verbally and physically in throwing coins at him won't change that situation.
Personally I care more about that than Scott Parkers hurt feelings.
I also resent the view of myself and others who share them being undermined by a lunatic minority who verbally and physically abuse Parker
Did this matter to you?
Diverting the argument towards other significant disappointments in the clubs history may help to give you perspective, but doesn't diminish the disappointment I felt and yes I suppose it still festers. I don't think I am alone in that.
I don't expect us to get another shot at Europe in my lifetime.
But clearly that matters more to me than it does to you3 -
Aah, for the simple pleasures of a perennial Championship club, with the occasional foray into League One.RedChaser said:
And what would we we have done in Europe mate? Answer - we don't know, the same as we don’t know if we would have even made qualification for Europe! It's all supposition and seriously we all need to let go, I did years ago, you will feel better for it trust me :-)Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
Unfortunately, I can't shrug it off so easily.Addick Addict said:
Yes but .Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
And our best player; the fulcrum of our side and the way we played, walking out in January when we were 4th in the table and with a once in a lifetime shot at Europe.Addick Addict said:
I do have passion for things that matter.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
AA, I don't mean this to sound disrespectful, but your piece comes across like the passionless view of somebody utterly ambivalent that your club was close to making history only to see their chances sabotaged.Addick Addict said:I do find the argument that Parker was responsible and to blame for us not getting into Europe an interesting one.
Parker was and never has been a goalscoring midfielder in the mold of a Lampard or a Gerard - he scored just nine in 128 League games for us. He was the engine room and his asset is driving the team forward and breaking down the opposition. So we are not talking about losing a Darren Bent at the height of his abilities.
Now if we then consider where we got a large number of our points with Parker it was away from home. But look at who we still had to play on the road after he left - Arsenal (finished 1st), Chelsea (2nd ), Man United (3rd), Liverpool (4th ), Newcastle (5th), Fulham (9th), Everton (17th) and Leeds (19th).
That is an extremely hard set of fixtures. In addition, Parker might well have missed some for us through suspension or injury but, even if he hadn't, there is absolutely no doubt, because of the way he plays, he would have been a spent force at some pint in the season.
Yes we missed out by four points. One could argue on the basis of probability that, had Parker stayed, we might have bridged that gap but there is absolutely no guarantee we would have achieved the sort of results we did in his absence (away to Liverpool for example) let alone the extra points required.
So, should we really be making him such a scapegoat for destroying the European dream when there are simply so many other factors involve? And abusing him both verbally and physically in throwing coins at him won't change that situation.
Personally I care more about that than Scott Parkers hurt feelings.
I also resent the view of myself and others who share them being undermined by a lunatic minority who verbally and physically abuse Parker
Did this matter to you?
Diverting the argument towards other significant disappointments in the clubs history may help to give you perspective, but doesn't diminish the disappointment I felt and yes I suppose it still festers. I don't think I am alone in that.
I don't expect us to get another shot at Europe in my lifetime.
But clearly that matters more to me than it does to you
By jove you're right. I feel better already :-)
3 -
I know it's hard but what a season in league 1, records busted everywhere :-) And they are proper memories not pipe dreams (winky smiley thing).1
-
Not pipe dreams Red, shattered dreams.RedChaser said:I know it's hard but what a season in league 1, records busted everywhere :-) And they are proper memories not pipe dreams (winky smiley thing).
Oh hell, I just won't let go will I?
:-)
0 -
You can do it repeat after me Oooo Scotty Parker, Oooo Scotty Parker. On second thoughts give that a miss. :-)2
-
Genuine LOLRedChaser said:You can do it repeat after me Oooo Scotty Parker, Oooo Scotty Parker. On second thoughts give that a miss. :-)
Thanks for that.(?)
1 -
Your memory is failing you. The infamous leaflet was handed out at (what was supposed to be) the penultimate game at The Valley, ironically in a match against Crystal Palace.Addick Addict said:
Yes but not as much as the day we picked up a leaflet upon arrival at the Stoke game telling us that this would be the last game at the Valley.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
And our best player; the fulcrum of our side and the way we played, walking out in January when we were 4th in the table and with a once in a lifetime shot at Europe.Addick Addict said:
I do have passion for things that matter.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
AA, I don't mean this to sound disrespectful, but your piece comes across like the passionless view of somebody utterly ambivalent that your club was close to making history only to see their chances sabotaged.Addick Addict said:I do find the argument that Parker was responsible and to blame for us not getting into Europe an interesting one.
Parker was and never has been a goalscoring midfielder in the mold of a Lampard or a Gerard - he scored just nine in 128 League games for us. He was the engine room and his asset is driving the team forward and breaking down the opposition. So we are not talking about losing a Darren Bent at the height of his abilities.
Now if we then consider where we got a large number of our points with Parker it was away from home. But look at who we still had to play on the road after he left - Arsenal (finished 1st), Chelsea (2nd ), Man United (3rd), Liverpool (4th ), Newcastle (5th), Fulham (9th), Everton (17th) and Leeds (19th).
That is an extremely hard set of fixtures. In addition, Parker might well have missed some for us through suspension or injury but, even if he hadn't, there is absolutely no doubt, because of the way he plays, he would have been a spent force at some pint in the season.
Yes we missed out by four points. One could argue on the basis of probability that, had Parker stayed, we might have bridged that gap but there is absolutely no guarantee we would have achieved the sort of results we did in his absence (away to Liverpool for example) let alone the extra points required.
So, should we really be making him such a scapegoat for destroying the European dream when there are simply so many other factors involve? And abusing him both verbally and physically in throwing coins at him won't change that situation.
Personally I care more about that than Scott Parkers hurt feelings.
I also resent the view of myself and others who share them being undermined by a lunatic minority who verbally and physically abuse Parker
Did this matter to you?1 -
That is the problem with getting old and sadly if you were to ask me I couldn't even tell you the score in the Palace or Stoke game even though I was at both. And I also haven't got a clue what happened to the bit of Valley turf I dug up at the end of that final game either.cafcfan said:
Your memory is failing you. The infamous leaflet was handed out at (what was supposed to be) the penultimate game at The Valley, ironically in a match against Crystal Palace.Addick Addict said:
Yes but not as much as the day we picked up a leaflet upon arrival at the Stoke game telling us that this would be the last game at the Valley.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
And our best player; the fulcrum of our side and the way we played, walking out in January when we were 4th in the table and with a once in a lifetime shot at Europe.Addick Addict said:
I do have passion for things that matter.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
AA, I don't mean this to sound disrespectful, but your piece comes across like the passionless view of somebody utterly ambivalent that your club was close to making history only to see their chances sabotaged.Addick Addict said:I do find the argument that Parker was responsible and to blame for us not getting into Europe an interesting one.
Parker was and never has been a goalscoring midfielder in the mold of a Lampard or a Gerard - he scored just nine in 128 League games for us. He was the engine room and his asset is driving the team forward and breaking down the opposition. So we are not talking about losing a Darren Bent at the height of his abilities.
Now if we then consider where we got a large number of our points with Parker it was away from home. But look at who we still had to play on the road after he left - Arsenal (finished 1st), Chelsea (2nd ), Man United (3rd), Liverpool (4th ), Newcastle (5th), Fulham (9th), Everton (17th) and Leeds (19th).
That is an extremely hard set of fixtures. In addition, Parker might well have missed some for us through suspension or injury but, even if he hadn't, there is absolutely no doubt, because of the way he plays, he would have been a spent force at some pint in the season.
Yes we missed out by four points. One could argue on the basis of probability that, had Parker stayed, we might have bridged that gap but there is absolutely no guarantee we would have achieved the sort of results we did in his absence (away to Liverpool for example) let alone the extra points required.
So, should we really be making him such a scapegoat for destroying the European dream when there are simply so many other factors involve? And abusing him both verbally and physically in throwing coins at him won't change that situation.
Personally I care more about that than Scott Parkers hurt feelings.
I also resent the view of myself and others who share them being undermined by a lunatic minority who verbally and physically abuse Parker
Did this matter to you?
All of that doesn't change what an impact that decision to leave had on my support of Charlton Athletic.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
They were sold by the club on the club's terms, they didn't go on strike. The club were nowhere near the position they were in 2004, the comparison is irrelevant.Addick Addict said:
Yes but not as much as the day we picked up a leaflet upon arrival at the Stoke game telling us that this would be the last game at the Valley.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
And our best player; the fulcrum of our side and the way we played, walking out in January when we were 4th in the table and with a once in a lifetime shot at Europe.Addick Addict said:
I do have passion for things that matter.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
AA, I don't mean this to sound disrespectful, but your piece comes across like the passionless view of somebody utterly ambivalent that your club was close to making history only to see their chances sabotaged.Addick Addict said:I do find the argument that Parker was responsible and to blame for us not getting into Europe an interesting one.
Parker was and never has been a goalscoring midfielder in the mold of a Lampard or a Gerard - he scored just nine in 128 League games for us. He was the engine room and his asset is driving the team forward and breaking down the opposition. So we are not talking about losing a Darren Bent at the height of his abilities.
Now if we then consider where we got a large number of our points with Parker it was away from home. But look at who we still had to play on the road after he left - Arsenal (finished 1st), Chelsea (2nd ), Man United (3rd), Liverpool (4th ), Newcastle (5th), Fulham (9th), Everton (17th) and Leeds (19th).
That is an extremely hard set of fixtures. In addition, Parker might well have missed some for us through suspension or injury but, even if he hadn't, there is absolutely no doubt, because of the way he plays, he would have been a spent force at some pint in the season.
Yes we missed out by four points. One could argue on the basis of probability that, had Parker stayed, we might have bridged that gap but there is absolutely no guarantee we would have achieved the sort of results we did in his absence (away to Liverpool for example) let alone the extra points required.
So, should we really be making him such a scapegoat for destroying the European dream when there are simply so many other factors involve? And abusing him both verbally and physically in throwing coins at him won't change that situation.
Personally I care more about that than Scott Parkers hurt feelings.
I also resent the view of myself and others who share them being undermined by a lunatic minority who verbally and physically abuse Parker
Did this matter to you?
And not as much as when Killer, Paul Walsh and Paul Elliot were sold by the Club. Perhaps that taught me that players are just commodities. So to let Parker's departure fester (when we got top dollar unlike most of the time we've sold our stars of the future) with me for a decade was never going to happen.
Parker should have waited 'til the end of the season and then gone to a Newcastle or Villa where he would have been first choice and built his career from there. How much do you think we would have got by comparison from those Clubs at that time?
As the father of a young lad finding his way in another sport I have also become more aware with how professional outfits actually do or don't look after the players of the future. And for every Parker and Defoe there are thousands that have shown devotion to Charlton every step of the way only for their dream to be shattered. I'd rather waste my energies hoping that those "discards" find their way in life than become wrapped up in hating a former player who, when he was on the pitch, gave his all.
Hope that helps you to understand.
6 -
Spot on - he held the club to ransom surely you remember the scenario MrOL?GretnaGreenAddick said:
True, although Parker refusing to do his job did not exactly help us.MrOneLung said:Only reason he got sold was because someone from our club signed a transfer contract with Chelsea.
If that doesn't happen, he doesn't get sold.0 -
Yes, I remember the mighty Dag & Red recording their first ever win over us, and us having enough loan signings to run a league of our own !RedChaser said:I know it's hard but what a season in league 1, records busted everywhere :-) And they are proper memories not pipe dreams (winky smiley thing).
0 -
Once you've hit rock bottom there's only one way to go and that's why the record breaking season 2011/12 was all the sweeter, is still to the forefront of my mind whilst the other stuff including Parker's departure has been consigned to the memory dustbin, give it a try. :-)Valiantphil said:
Yes, I remember the mighty Dag & Red recording their first ever win over us, and us having enough loan signings to run a league of our own !RedChaser said:I know it's hard but what a season in league 1, records busted everywhere :-) And they are proper memories not pipe dreams (winky smiley thing).
0 -
The comparison might be irrelevant to you but it certainly isn't to me.Algarveaddick said:
They were sold by the club on the club's terms, they didn't go on strike. The club were nowhere near the position they were in 2004, the comparison is irrelevant.Addick Addict said:
Yes but not as much as the day we picked up a leaflet upon arrival at the Stoke game telling us that this would be the last game at the Valley.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
And our best player; the fulcrum of our side and the way we played, walking out in January when we were 4th in the table and with a once in a lifetime shot at Europe.Addick Addict said:
I do have passion for things that matter.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
AA, I don't mean this to sound disrespectful, but your piece comes across like the passionless view of somebody utterly ambivalent that your club was close to making history only to see their chances sabotaged.Addick Addict said:I do find the argument that Parker was responsible and to blame for us not getting into Europe an interesting one.
Parker was and never has been a goalscoring midfielder in the mold of a Lampard or a Gerard - he scored just nine in 128 League games for us. He was the engine room and his asset is driving the team forward and breaking down the opposition. So we are not talking about losing a Darren Bent at the height of his abilities.
Now if we then consider where we got a large number of our points with Parker it was away from home. But look at who we still had to play on the road after he left - Arsenal (finished 1st), Chelsea (2nd ), Man United (3rd), Liverpool (4th ), Newcastle (5th), Fulham (9th), Everton (17th) and Leeds (19th).
That is an extremely hard set of fixtures. In addition, Parker might well have missed some for us through suspension or injury but, even if he hadn't, there is absolutely no doubt, because of the way he plays, he would have been a spent force at some pint in the season.
Yes we missed out by four points. One could argue on the basis of probability that, had Parker stayed, we might have bridged that gap but there is absolutely no guarantee we would have achieved the sort of results we did in his absence (away to Liverpool for example) let alone the extra points required.
So, should we really be making him such a scapegoat for destroying the European dream when there are simply so many other factors involve? And abusing him both verbally and physically in throwing coins at him won't change that situation.
Personally I care more about that than Scott Parkers hurt feelings.
I also resent the view of myself and others who share them being undermined by a lunatic minority who verbally and physically abuse Parker
Did this matter to you?
And not as much as when Killer, Paul Walsh and Paul Elliot were sold by the Club. Perhaps that taught me that players are just commodities. So to let Parker's departure fester (when we got top dollar unlike most of the time we've sold our stars of the future) with me for a decade was never going to happen.
Parker should have waited 'til the end of the season and then gone to a Newcastle or Villa where he would have been first choice and built his career from there. How much do you think we would have got by comparison from those Clubs at that time?
As the father of a young lad finding his way in another sport I have also become more aware with how professional outfits actually do or don't look after the players of the future. And for every Parker and Defoe there are thousands that have shown devotion to Charlton every step of the way only for their dream to be shattered. I'd rather waste my energies hoping that those "discards" find their way in life than become wrapped up in hating a former player who, when he was on the pitch, gave his all.
Hope that helps you to understand.
As for a "strike" please don't get carried away with that notion. Curbs only had to say "you aren't going" and Parker would still have turned up to play. Because he is a pro and you won't find a single person in the game who will say otherwise.
But getting £10 million for a player now who isn't happy from cash rich Chelsea as opposed to £5 million at the end of the season from someone like Newcastle might just have tipped the scales don't you think? Because Chelsea weren't going to wait 'til the end of the season that's for certain.1 -
kermogant and parker in the same sentence is the only right bit of the post Treacey both wanted more money and spat their dummies out to get it0
-
Perhaps irrelevant is the wrong word, I don't know what is actually, but the circumstances were so different as to invite no comparison.Addick Addict said:
The comparison might be irrelevant to you but it certainly isn't to me.Algarveaddick said:
They were sold by the club on the club's terms, they didn't go on strike. The club were nowhere near the position they were in 2004, the comparison is irrelevant.Addick Addict said:
Yes but not as much as the day we picked up a leaflet upon arrival at the Stoke game telling us that this would be the last game at the Valley.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
And our best player; the fulcrum of our side and the way we played, walking out in January when we were 4th in the table and with a once in a lifetime shot at Europe.Addick Addict said:
I do have passion for things that matter.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
AA, I don't mean this to sound disrespectful, but your piece comes across like the passionless view of somebody utterly ambivalent that your club was close to making history only to see their chances sabotaged.Addick Addict said:I do find the argument that Parker was responsible and to blame for us not getting into Europe an interesting one.
Parker was and never has been a goalscoring midfielder in the mold of a Lampard or a Gerard - he scored just nine in 128 League games for us. He was the engine room and his asset is driving the team forward and breaking down the opposition. So we are not talking about losing a Darren Bent at the height of his abilities.
Now if we then consider where we got a large number of our points with Parker it was away from home. But look at who we still had to play on the road after he left - Arsenal (finished 1st), Chelsea (2nd ), Man United (3rd), Liverpool (4th ), Newcastle (5th), Fulham (9th), Everton (17th) and Leeds (19th).
That is an extremely hard set of fixtures. In addition, Parker might well have missed some for us through suspension or injury but, even if he hadn't, there is absolutely no doubt, because of the way he plays, he would have been a spent force at some pint in the season.
Yes we missed out by four points. One could argue on the basis of probability that, had Parker stayed, we might have bridged that gap but there is absolutely no guarantee we would have achieved the sort of results we did in his absence (away to Liverpool for example) let alone the extra points required.
So, should we really be making him such a scapegoat for destroying the European dream when there are simply so many other factors involve? And abusing him both verbally and physically in throwing coins at him won't change that situation.
Personally I care more about that than Scott Parkers hurt feelings.
I also resent the view of myself and others who share them being undermined by a lunatic minority who verbally and physically abuse Parker
Did this matter to you?
And not as much as when Killer, Paul Walsh and Paul Elliot were sold by the Club. Perhaps that taught me that players are just commodities. So to let Parker's departure fester (when we got top dollar unlike most of the time we've sold our stars of the future) with me for a decade was never going to happen.
Parker should have waited 'til the end of the season and then gone to a Newcastle or Villa where he would have been first choice and built his career from there. How much do you think we would have got by comparison from those Clubs at that time?
As the father of a young lad finding his way in another sport I have also become more aware with how professional outfits actually do or don't look after the players of the future. And for every Parker and Defoe there are thousands that have shown devotion to Charlton every step of the way only for their dream to be shattered. I'd rather waste my energies hoping that those "discards" find their way in life than become wrapped up in hating a former player who, when he was on the pitch, gave his all.
Hope that helps you to understand.
As for a "strike" please don't get carried away with that notion. Curbs only had to say "you aren't going" and Parker would still have turned up to play. Because he is a pro and you won't find a single person in the game who will say otherwise.
But getting £10 million for a player now who isn't happy from cash rich Chelsea as opposed to £5 million at the end of the season from someone like Newcastle might just have tipped the scales don't you think? Because Chelsea weren't going to wait 'til the end of the season that's for certain.
Parker certainly refused to play. *
He was on a five year contract, he was getting better and better, as was the team he played for. I think most (honest) folk would agree that he was a shoe in for Euro 2014, what on earth makes you think he would have gone to someone like Newcastle for just £5m that summer?
* Edit - humble pie. I have checked and I am wrong about this. Apologies AA.1 -
OK let's set aside what we would have got for him and just agree we wouldn't have received as much from any other team at the end of the season than we did from Chelsea.Algarveaddick said:
Perhaps irrelevant is the wrong word, I don't know what is actually, but the circumstances were so different as to invite no comparison.Addick Addict said:
The comparison might be irrelevant to you but it certainly isn't to me.Algarveaddick said:
They were sold by the club on the club's terms, they didn't go on strike. The club were nowhere near the position they were in 2004, the comparison is irrelevant.Addick Addict said:
Yes but not as much as the day we picked up a leaflet upon arrival at the Stoke game telling us that this would be the last game at the Valley.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
And our best player; the fulcrum of our side and the way we played, walking out in January when we were 4th in the table and with a once in a lifetime shot at Europe.Addick Addict said:
I do have passion for things that matter.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
AA, I don't mean this to sound disrespectful, but your piece comes across like the passionless view of somebody utterly ambivalent that your club was close to making history only to see their chances sabotaged.Addick Addict said:I do find the argument that Parker was responsible and to blame for us not getting into Europe an interesting one.
Parker was and never has been a goalscoring midfielder in the mold of a Lampard or a Gerard - he scored just nine in 128 League games for us. He was the engine room and his asset is driving the team forward and breaking down the opposition. So we are not talking about losing a Darren Bent at the height of his abilities.
Now if we then consider where we got a large number of our points with Parker it was away from home. But look at who we still had to play on the road after he left - Arsenal (finished 1st), Chelsea (2nd ), Man United (3rd), Liverpool (4th ), Newcastle (5th), Fulham (9th), Everton (17th) and Leeds (19th).
That is an extremely hard set of fixtures. In addition, Parker might well have missed some for us through suspension or injury but, even if he hadn't, there is absolutely no doubt, because of the way he plays, he would have been a spent force at some pint in the season.
Yes we missed out by four points. One could argue on the basis of probability that, had Parker stayed, we might have bridged that gap but there is absolutely no guarantee we would have achieved the sort of results we did in his absence (away to Liverpool for example) let alone the extra points required.
So, should we really be making him such a scapegoat for destroying the European dream when there are simply so many other factors involve? And abusing him both verbally and physically in throwing coins at him won't change that situation.
Personally I care more about that than Scott Parkers hurt feelings.
I also resent the view of myself and others who share them being undermined by a lunatic minority who verbally and physically abuse Parker
Did this matter to you?
And not as much as when Killer, Paul Walsh and Paul Elliot were sold by the Club. Perhaps that taught me that players are just commodities. So to let Parker's departure fester (when we got top dollar unlike most of the time we've sold our stars of the future) with me for a decade was never going to happen.
Parker should have waited 'til the end of the season and then gone to a Newcastle or Villa where he would have been first choice and built his career from there. How much do you think we would have got by comparison from those Clubs at that time?
As the father of a young lad finding his way in another sport I have also become more aware with how professional outfits actually do or don't look after the players of the future. And for every Parker and Defoe there are thousands that have shown devotion to Charlton every step of the way only for their dream to be shattered. I'd rather waste my energies hoping that those "discards" find their way in life than become wrapped up in hating a former player who, when he was on the pitch, gave his all.
Hope that helps you to understand.
As for a "strike" please don't get carried away with that notion. Curbs only had to say "you aren't going" and Parker would still have turned up to play. Because he is a pro and you won't find a single person in the game who will say otherwise.
But getting £10 million for a player now who isn't happy from cash rich Chelsea as opposed to £5 million at the end of the season from someone like Newcastle might just have tipped the scales don't you think? Because Chelsea weren't going to wait 'til the end of the season that's for certain.
Parker certainly refused to play. *
He was on a five year contract, he was getting better and better, as was the team he played for. I think most (honest) folk would agree that he was a shoe in for Euro 2014, what on earth makes you think he would have gone to someone like Newcastle for just £5m that summer?
* Edit - humble pie. I have checked and I am wrong about this. Apologies AA.
Going back to Parker expressing his desire to leave in that window and my assertion that Curbs could have played "hard ball" with him.
To me the world is made up of two types of individuals in this situation - on the one hand someone like Winston Bogarde who carried on taking the money and let his contract run out. And on the other someone like Morgan Schneirderlin at Southampton.
As we know Schneirdelin, following the sales of Shaw, Chambers, Lambert, Lovren and Lallana, demanded a move pre season. He was told he couldn't leave and expressed his anger at that decision via social media.
So what has happened? Well Schneirdelin has played every minute of every League game this season and Southampton currently lie second.
I'd like to think, knowing what I do know about Parker, that had we refused that request he would have reacted in the same way as Schneirdelin. And given that we couldn't get a ready made replacement for him and that we would get a decent fee for him at the end of the season, what did we have to lose by adopting that stance?1 -
@Addick Addict
of course speculating on what might have been is a mug's game, but based on what I learnt at the time, some of which is retold in Curbs book, I feel you are making a number of assumptions which ought to be challenged.
1. Parker claimed that he had a gentleman's agreement with RM that he could move if a top 3 club came in for him. Curbs points out that even if that were true (which he doesn't confirm) a proper professional would have told his agent to get it written into his contract.
2. Curbs says that anyway at Charlton, Top 3 meant Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal.
3. Either way, that means that bids from the likes Newcastle and Villa would have been brushed aside both by the club, and by Parker himself, if Parker's blustering reasons for wanting to leave were to be believed.
4. There is no justification for the assumption that Chelsea themselves would not have been back in as soon as the summer window opened. Don't forget that they too would not have been able to sign anyone after Jan. Of course the likes of Abramovic want you to believe they would go away if you don't take their offer, right now. It was and is bluster. Indeed if Parker had been a professional a pre- agreement could have been reached. Chelsea would have agreed because they would of course have realised that if Parker had helped carry us into Europe, the real Big Three would have been in for him.
I don't go through my whole life being pissed off about Scott Parker, and neither does anyone else. But clearly a sizeable number of us, when reminded of what he did, think of it as one of the worst things a player did to us. The only way that can change is if Parker himself reflects on this and comes out and apologises. So far he has refused to do so. So I see no reason to forgive him.10 -
One Greedy Bastard4
-
Sponsored links:
-
Did anyone return the toys he threw out of his cot in 2004? No? there's always the return fixture.1
-
I'm sure we could get a discount for a bulk purchase...Tutt-Tutt said:Did anyone return the toys he threw out of his cot in 2004? No? there's always the return fixture.
amazon.co.uk/County-Sales-Soothers-Dummies-Pacifiers/dp/B00FRIHWBK/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1414509615&sr=8-12&keywords=babies+dummies
Or some nice badges:
0 -
it would be amazing if cafc fans did actually bring some dummies/babies toys to chuck on the pitch when we play fulham in the return fixture. The club would probably get fined though...0
-
I think you misunderstand my edit, I was talking about the refusal to play. He was never fined for refusing to play, and according to Chris Parkes, Curbs was red hot on that sort of thing, and he would have been disciplined had he done so. He may have made noises, spat his dummy out etc, but I was wrong to assert he actually refused.Addick Addict said:
OK let's set aside what we would have got for him and just agree we wouldn't have received as much from any other team at the end of the season than we did from Chelsea.Algarveaddick said:
Perhaps irrelevant is the wrong word, I don't know what is actually, but the circumstances were so different as to invite no comparison.Addick Addict said:
The comparison might be irrelevant to you but it certainly isn't to me.Algarveaddick said:
They were sold by the club on the club's terms, they didn't go on strike. The club were nowhere near the position they were in 2004, the comparison is irrelevant.Addick Addict said:
Yes but not as much as the day we picked up a leaflet upon arrival at the Stoke game telling us that this would be the last game at the Valley.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
And our best player; the fulcrum of our side and the way we played, walking out in January when we were 4th in the table and with a once in a lifetime shot at Europe.Addick Addict said:
I do have passion for things that matter.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
AA, I don't mean this to sound disrespectful, but your piece comes across like the passionless view of somebody utterly ambivalent that your club was close to making history only to see their chances sabotaged.Addick Addict said:I do find the argument that Parker was responsible and to blame for us not getting into Europe an interesting one.
Parker was and never has been a goalscoring midfielder in the mold of a Lampard or a Gerard - he scored just nine in 128 League games for us. He was the engine room and his asset is driving the team forward and breaking down the opposition. So we are not talking about losing a Darren Bent at the height of his abilities.
Now if we then consider where we got a large number of our points with Parker it was away from home. But look at who we still had to play on the road after he left - Arsenal (finished 1st), Chelsea (2nd ), Man United (3rd), Liverpool (4th ), Newcastle (5th), Fulham (9th), Everton (17th) and Leeds (19th).
That is an extremely hard set of fixtures. In addition, Parker might well have missed some for us through suspension or injury but, even if he hadn't, there is absolutely no doubt, because of the way he plays, he would have been a spent force at some pint in the season.
Yes we missed out by four points. One could argue on the basis of probability that, had Parker stayed, we might have bridged that gap but there is absolutely no guarantee we would have achieved the sort of results we did in his absence (away to Liverpool for example) let alone the extra points required.
So, should we really be making him such a scapegoat for destroying the European dream when there are simply so many other factors involve? And abusing him both verbally and physically in throwing coins at him won't change that situation.
Personally I care more about that than Scott Parkers hurt feelings.
I also resent the view of myself and others who share them being undermined by a lunatic minority who verbally and physically abuse Parker
Did this matter to you?
And not as much as when Killer, Paul Walsh and Paul Elliot were sold by the Club. Perhaps that taught me that players are just commodities. So to let Parker's departure fester (when we got top dollar unlike most of the time we've sold our stars of the future) with me for a decade was never going to happen.
Parker should have waited 'til the end of the season and then gone to a Newcastle or Villa where he would have been first choice and built his career from there. How much do you think we would have got by comparison from those Clubs at that time?
As the father of a young lad finding his way in another sport I have also become more aware with how professional outfits actually do or don't look after the players of the future. And for every Parker and Defoe there are thousands that have shown devotion to Charlton every step of the way only for their dream to be shattered. I'd rather waste my energies hoping that those "discards" find their way in life than become wrapped up in hating a former player who, when he was on the pitch, gave his all.
Hope that helps you to understand.
As for a "strike" please don't get carried away with that notion. Curbs only had to say "you aren't going" and Parker would still have turned up to play. Because he is a pro and you won't find a single person in the game who will say otherwise.
But getting £10 million for a player now who isn't happy from cash rich Chelsea as opposed to £5 million at the end of the season from someone like Newcastle might just have tipped the scales don't you think? Because Chelsea weren't going to wait 'til the end of the season that's for certain.
Parker certainly refused to play. *
He was on a five year contract, he was getting better and better, as was the team he played for. I think most (honest) folk would agree that he was a shoe in for Euro 2014, what on earth makes you think he would have gone to someone like Newcastle for just £5m that summer?
* Edit - humble pie. I have checked and I am wrong about this. Apologies AA.
Going back to Parker expressing his desire to leave in that window and my assertion that Curbs could have played "hard ball" with him.
To me the world is made up of two types of individuals in this situation - on the one hand someone like Winston Bogarde who carried on taking the money and let his contract run out. And on the other someone like Morgan Schneirderlin at Southampton.
As we know Schneirdelin, following the sales of Shaw, Chambers, Lambert, Lovren and Lallana, demanded a move pre season. He was told he couldn't leave and expressed his anger at that decision via social media.
So what has happened? Well Schneirdelin has played every minute of every League game this season and Southampton currently lie second.
I'd like to think, knowing what I do know about Parker, that had we refused that request he would have reacted in the same way as Schneirdelin. And given that we couldn't get a ready made replacement for him and that we would get a decent fee for him at the end of the season, what did we have to lose by adopting that stance?
As for the price at the end of the season, I am in wholehearted agreement with Prague, although we can never know what might have been, I think the scenario he paints is the most accurate (given that Parker didn't sustain a long term injury between Jan and May...).0 -
Algarveaddick said:
Spot on - he held the club to ransom surely you remember the scenario MrOL?GretnaGreenAddick said:
True, although Parker refusing to do his job did not exactly help us.MrOneLung said:Only reason he got sold was because someone from our club signed a transfer contract with Chelsea.
If that doesn't happen, he doesn't get sold.
We only sold him last day of the window.
Any ransom holding he may or may not have done would have been over by the next day when he could no longer be sold.
The club should not have sold him.1 -
I confess to being mistaken on the actual refusal to play, but he played his last game on Jan 10th, and did not play at Everton the next week as he was demanding to be let go to Chelsea and was not in the right frame of mind to play for us. He was insisting that he be allowed to move. So our club wanting him to go was not the "only reason" why he got sold. He did not want to play for us any more.MrOneLung said:Algarveaddick said:
Spot on - he held the club to ransom surely you remember the scenario MrOL?GretnaGreenAddick said:
True, although Parker refusing to do his job did not exactly help us.MrOneLung said:Only reason he got sold was because someone from our club signed a transfer contract with Chelsea.
If that doesn't happen, he doesn't get sold.
We only sold him last day of the window.
Any ransom holding he may or may not have done would have been over by the next day when he could no longer be sold.
The club should not have sold him.0 -
But what would he have done if not sold?
Not play rest for rest of the season or bust a gut to keep himself in shop window?0 -
The club - both the directors and Curbs - were concerned that he would not play to anywhere near the best of his ability, causing our form to suffer, unrest among the other players, and a reduction in his value in the summer because of his attitude. He had also threatened to "go to the papers" as detailed in Curbs' book. Indeed either his agent or someone from Chelsea had already gone to the papers. The Sun played a dirty game throughout the saga (which I complained to the PCC about) and the club feared that was just a taste of what was to come.MrOneLung said:But what would he have done if not sold?
Not play rest for rest of the season or bust a gut to keep himself in shop window?
It's a risk you too might not have wanted to take if you were in their shoes.
0 -
Richard Murray is who effectively sold him and he has said Parker left for the money.
Said he could earn £5million over the period of the contract. Very, very few top level professionals have been injured out of the game in the last 15 years and the (top level) ones who do get looked after.
Greedy shithouse and I will never forgive or forget what the prick did. Fair play anyone who can but I can't.8 -
Not sure if you can put them in the same bracket nla?nth london addick said:kermogant and parker in the same sentence is the only right bit of the post Treacey both wanted more money and spat their dummies out to get it
one came through the youth team and cried over a pound note, the other, arguably, had one last chance at some money.
and didnt refuse to train (whilst sat in his baby Bentley )0
