"If you take into account the fee of around £8m, signing on fees and wages you're talking about a £30m deal. There is no way the club would sanction a deal for a 30-year-old who would have no resale value at the end of his contract."
So, Spurs wouldn't sanction that contract but West Ham did. Is it any wonder that Tottenham are in rude financial health and we are in the shit?
21 comments:
The question is ,will Mr Moneybags ABRAMOVICH fork out for PARKER.All will be revealed next week.Basically PARKER'S transfer fee and wages are just small change to him and shouldn't pose to much of a problem,it just depends on how much does the new manager want him to replace ESSIEN.I think it will be either CHELSEA or VILLA next week!
well done both you and harry can add up, wages + transfer fee = duhhh, the worst kept secret in football. however it didnt stop him wasting 30 million bringing robbie keane back from liverpool. similar age, similar wage, similar transfer fee but! keane had a mare at liverpool and they wanted rid, yet he still paid over the odds wouldn't you say.
heres a thought, maybe the whole point of giving him a new contract was so nobody could be able to afford to sign him? afterall we have shifted a good 400k a week off the wage bill already and still have faubert and ilunga to go whoby the way are on more combined than parker and would raise a small fee. we dont need to sell, but if someome is daft enough to produce a 30 million package then he will be off, surely it is win win, unless you have a personal vendetta against the guy
Far from it. It is lose lose. We paid him £4million inwages last season - when he was in his prime - and finished bottom. Therefore, £4million of any transfer fee we receive has already been pissed down the toilet. Had we sold him last summer, we would have got £10million, now we will get £7million tops. So, lost £3m in value, cost £4million in wages, if we sell him for £7million we break even - ignoring the £6.5m we paid to bring him to the club of course! How are we winners on that basis exactly?
Hf - 'Arry's just talking bollocks as per usual. Only the Dildos shovel as much shit as him.
Granted that Parker's 4 year wage deal was incredulous (when you consider the hullabaloo they created regarding the previous regime's wage policy). But then none of us can really say what he's actually being paid as it continuously changes from story to story.
8 mil is an extremely fair price for Parker in my opinion. And regardless of whether Chelski go for him, or not, the very fact that they're considering him verifies that someone thinks he's in the top drawer.
Twitchy's point was that they wouldn't consider paying 8 mil for him when the overall deal for a 30 year old with no recycleability will cost them 30 mil. Yet he would be happy to get him on the cheap for 4 mil. So therefore he apparently thinks that 26 mill for a 30 year old with no recycleability IS considerable...BOLLOCKS! He's just sniffing for a deal. If your fooled by that then I've obviously given you too much credit.
Secondly, the fee is the smallest part of the deal, it's the wages that are the problem. Now if Droopy's stupid enough to pay him the same wages as we are then he's a bigger cnut that even I thought he was.
We only control his fee..the wages are up to his new master..If Parker genuinely wants a move then that's something for him to worry about. If 8 mil's his price then either piss or get off the pot! I personally however wouldn't even give Ugly Redcrapp the droppings off my c**k!
Loving the passion Dave and I don't disagree with you re 'Arry. The problem for us is Levy. He is too cute to take on Parker's salary with all the implications that will have regarding wage structures at Tottenham. Now, if they were to cut the price to £4m to West Ham, with £2m to fund the difference between what we pay Parker and what Tottenham are prepared to pay him, then a deal might be possible. Remember, Parker hasn't actually asked to move. Why? Because that would cost him a cut of the transfer fee!
18:39 - Anonymous, whoever the F**k you are, you're talking nonsense -
"maybe the whole point of giving him a new contract was so nobody could be able to afford to sign him?"
- We gave him a new contract because at the time it was deemed he was worth it and we didn't want to lose him for free like those Cnuts Neil, Upson, Ba and Hitzelswhatever. Every body and my dog are spurting crap about what his wages are. Where the f**k are you all getting your figures from? I've got a pretty good idea it's from the same place that chocolate's made - Milk, milk, lemonade...
A footballer's a commodity much like a car, no matter what you pay for it the odds are it's still gonna depreciate over time. If you want to keep up with the pack you might get a Ferrari, if you can afford to...If you do it's ticket will be high and it's gonna cost you considerably more to run a than a Fiesta. A footballer's wages are running costs just like the fuel you put in the car. Only a fool would buy such an expensive toy if they couldn't afford to pump the fuel into it (enter the Icelanders).
The problem stems from when the Dildos obtained Parker as part of a job-lot. They mistakenly identified him as our "Ferrari" and subsequently that mistake culminated in a commitment to purchase four years worth of premium fuel. If they had correctly identified Scott as the dependable "tractor" he really is...they could have pumped four years worth of red diesel into him and saved us a sisable fortune.
Hf -
"We paid him £4million inwages last season"
- again...where did that come from?
And nobody Iv'e ever known has ever sold a car and counted into the equation how much fuel they pumped into it during the time they owned it. They'd probably cry otherwise. But I largely agree that if we could have sold him in January for 10 mil then we were stupid not to. So presumably there was actually an offer on the table for him? Or did that come from the chocolate factory too?
20:34 - Still too much money for a 30 year old with no recycleability..If that's their real issue? 'Arry can't help himself...if we only wanted an apple for Parker he'd still want to cut it in half. If he was at Manc City he'd still be sniffing around for bargains. You can take the boy away from the cheap seats but you can't take the cheap out of the boy! 'Arry and the Dildos are like lotto winners - all f**king three of them!
If Parker is really getting 4 mil per year, as you claim, and is so desperate to move then will he really miss a cut of an 8 mil transfer fee?
If the guy's motivation to move is to continue his England career (a very risky strategy in my opinion) then money wont be an issue for him.
If his real motivation is money then on those wages he's not going anywhere.
I guess only time will tell.
We should have sold him last summer Dave, not in January! And yes, Liverpool would have paid £10m for him then.
Scotty Parker Who is he?
With the knowledge we have now..then of course we should have sold him. But as no one had the luxury of hindsight back then I think that actually the right decision was made to keep him. To have sold our best player at that particular time would have conveyed the wrong message to everyone.
The decision to renegotiate his contract at that point however was seriously flawed as it was unnecessary. If I'm not mistaken Parker had three years left to run on his contract as he had already been awarded a four and a half year contract by Duxbury back in Feb 2009. Which I believe would have kept him here until summer 2013 anyway. I'm sure he would have leaped at the chance to add another year onto that by the time that point came around, if indeed we even still wanted him by then.
At the end of the day though do you really blame Parker for not wanting to work for a pair of nobs like them? I know I certainly wouldn't.. it's bad enough just being a fan.
At this point, if we are to go straight back up then the "out" door should be slammed firmly shut by the end of next week at the very latest! One or two more to come in and I actually might fancy our chances a little bit. coytiredirons..yaaaawn!
I must be a witch then Dave because I was saying Sell Sell Sell last summer! I argued Parker was part of the problem because of his lack of goals and assists and that £10m was fantastic business for him. I said Behrami could do Parker's job just as well and that priority positions were right and left back and another striker. Hindsight suggests I was right!
If we had sold him and then got relegated I can imagine what everyone would have been saying about Sugo. You are putting them in a lose, lose situation Hf
Hf - 07:08
You quote 10 mil for Parker and again I ask you where do you come up with these figures? You simply read the same bollocks as the rest of us. It's nothing more than hearsay, some of it lands but the majority of it doesn't. Don't believe everything you read, but if you do..don't be a fool by recycling it. If it has come from the OS then you can quote it as fact! Otherwise you're on a hiding to nothing.
The latter end of this season proved that our team was severely weaker in Parker's absence. He was clearly the best of a bad bunch. Cashing in on him back last summer would have been pointless. If it was to be believed that we were building for the new term then he would've had to be replaced like for like..who was available at that time for under 10 mil? Don't feed me that Behrami crap either(even you don't don't rate Behrami)..If hindsight suggests anything then it confirms that you were WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! To have relied upon Behrami to do Parker's job would've been an absolute disaster..He left in the winter and would still have done so regardless of whether we relied upon him or not.
If Parker WAS part of the problem then it wasn't for the reasons you mentioned. Granted he only managed to net 5 premiership goals last season and that's nothing to brag on I admit..but sadly it represented as much as 12.5% of our season tally. When you compare this to our main striker Piq's 6 and Cole's 5 then our holding midfielder Parker certainly boxed his weight. Compare the last two then with Ba's 7 (in 12) and now you're getting closer to the real problem. Chance after chance after chance squandered by both of them.
Parker actually makes PLENTY of assists but the stats fail to count for the ones that the likes of (barn-door) Cole fail to bury.
Parker's biggest failing in my opinion was his constant running toward our own 18 yard box and taking the legs of the opposition. But then if our defense had been up to the job he wouldn't have had to track back so often.
It was glaringly obvious to EVERYONE that we needed to strengthen in defense and attack and this still remains the problem as we speak. You can take the credit for that one if you like..but your gonna have to share it with 1000's of other arm-chair pundits I'm afraid.
Parker was the SMALLEST part of the problem and getting rid of him last summer would NOT have prevented us from being relegated.
On the other hand however it may have stopped you from constantly harping on about him! Your obsession with him does seem a little unhealthy to me. Then I'm no shrink and I don't particularly care anyway. But seriously though..it probably wouldn't hurt to see one.
A bit of a bunny-boiler maybe? An ego-maniac definitely! But a witch..I don't know Hammersfan..do you think you're one?
Well Dave, you are right about his fouls as he retreats towards his own goal. Just like the foul he gave away against Switzerland eh? Why? Because he doesn't hold his position!
As for his assists, can you remember Cole, Keane or Piquionne missing a chance created by Parker? I honestly cannot remember one. The truth is, Parker creates very, very, very few chances. Remind me of a game when we created lots of chances,apart from against Man Utd in the League Cup when, of course, Parker didn't play.
As for the wisdom of parting with Parker, you have to think about what might have been done with the money. You are right to point out that the defence was a problem, well a left back should have been bought last summer. Perhaps half of the Parker fee could have been invested there. Then you point to the absence of a true goal scorer. Well maybe, had we taken Keane on loan in August, he might have found his scoring boots by January.
My point is that I called repeatedly for Parker to be sold last summer because his scoring and assist record was so poor. I said we had two defensive midfielders in Behrami and Parker who lacked vision, creativity and an eye for a goal. I advocated selling both, identifying both as over rated, over valued and over here. A tall, hard, holding midfielder paired with a creative midfielder with the ability to score would have given balance. Instead we had two players whose first instinct when receiving the ball was not to pass but to run with the bloody thing.
So could we have done worse than finish bottom? No. So what was the point in keeping Parker exactly?
My obsession with Parker is born out of Sullivan and Gold's obsession with the guy. Their statement that everybody was available except Parker could not have been better designed to destroy any sense of team spirit. The fans too gave him much too much license. Had it been Boa giving away free kicks on the edge of our box, the fans would have given him the bird but because it was Scotty, nobody complained. In fact, like you have just done, others were blamed for his "need" to bring opponents down!
I share the same dislike of our ring masters as you and have made no secret of this. however I despise them for what they are and not because someone else bigs them up.
I certainly don't agree that Parker is as good as the Dildos and the media have made him out to be. In fact far from it. But as I do not have an obsession with him I can look at all this far more perspectively than you. The guy has been by far our best player recently and this is mainly due to the lack of diligence shown by those around him.
I can't see the sense in some fans getting on any of our players at matches whether it be Boa, Cole or whoever. It doesn't achieve anything positive and is nothing more than an own goal in truth.
We have had and will always have our share of gullible fans who are easy to manipulate and they will still be around and arguing rubbish with you long after Parker has gone no doubt.
The fact is that Parker is a better than average player..nothing more..nothing less. Everything else has been said by other people and in fairness he has never played up to any of this. He made some imprudent comments after the Switzerland game but apart from that he's a good guy.
This is your blog and one of the best around in my opinion. As such it's your privilege to continue with your obsession for as long as you want to. I'm sure you realise that you'll never achieve anything other than winding yourself up, but if that's your thing then bravo.
But, with respect Dave, there you go again. You judge Parker by different standards yourself. One of the good guys? So why was that contract left unsigned for so long last summer? Why did he only sign it AFTER Tottenham switched their attention to VDV? And why, with two years plus still to run on his existing contract, did S&G feel the need to offer him a contract extension? Because they like giving away money? All this was engineered by Parker and his agent. He creamed us!
Now, Defoe is hated because he demanded a transfer the day after we were relegated; Parker gave it a week. True it wasn't a formal transfer request because that would cost him, but he made it clear he wanted to go didn't he? Now, had that been any other player, the fans would have been in uproar but because it was Parker, all was forgiven. In fact, West Ham fans were queueing around the block to say "You can't blame him".
Here's a frightening stat: West Ham have only won 30 Premiership games with Parker in the team! That's 30 wins from 109 games, or a win ratio of one win every 3.633 games. That gives you ten wins over the course of a 38 game season or 30 points, meaning you need 8 draws to reach the 38 point target to avoid the drop!
So, even allowing for when we finished 9th in the table, Parker's overall win ratio to games played keeps us firmly in the drop zone. That's a bit odd isn't it? I mean, this guy is meant to be a West Ham legend!
I don't blame Parker for the way he has been over hyped but I do blame him for the way he held out for that move to Tottenham last summer and for his statement after the Switzerland game. I also hold him accountable, along with the rest of the team, for our relegation last season.
Hammersfan, if you really believe that Parker and his agent creamed the Dildos (unfortunate phraseology) over a one year extension to his contract that still had three years left to run then you're more deluded than I originally thought. Luka Modric is struggling to get a move to Chelski even though he put in a transfer request. If the spuds sell him then it will be on their terms and that's the way it works.
Parker had 3 years left on his contract so what did he have to bargain with exactly? There was absolutely no reason to give him another year..unless of course they offered him the ONE year extension on the grounds that he actually lowered his current wages. The lure of security for Parker and to spread his costs over a longer term for the Dildos..Now that suddenly makes a lot of sense and it would explain why he dragged his heels over signing it. It's a shrewd move and certainly sounds like something the Dildos would do. Of course my theory has no more substance than yours. Unless Parker/his agent or the OS actually tell us then we will probably never know for sure. In other words it's pointless to argue it!
"Now, Defoe is hated because he demanded a transfer the day after we were relegated" - So? he got what he deserved in my opinion!
You blame Parker for his statement after the Switzerland game - blame him for what exactly? he answered a question honestly and at no time was he disrespectful to West Ham United or YOU. The media had a field day with this and as usual you jumped on the band wagon. The guy gave his ALL for us last season and was let down by almost everyone around him. As a result he now faces the choice of giving up on his England dream or being loyal to the club that let him down. He had every right to feel as let down as you or I and did not say any more than we have said. He's still here at present, training and playing friendlies, so until something else happens then you've got nothing to blame him for!
So what exactly do you think you have proved with this bollocks -
"Here's a frightening stat: West Ham have only won 30 Premiership games with Parker in the team! That's 30 wins from 109 games, or a win ratio of one win every 3.633 games." -
Well what you conveniently failed to mention Hf was that West Ham have only won 9 Premiership games WITHOUT Parker in the team! That's 9 wins from 38 games, or a win ratio of one win every 4.222 games.
Now if you couple these findings with these - Chelski won 10 Premiership games with Parker in the team! That's 10 wins from 15 games, or a win ratio of one win every 1.5 - what do all these figures tell us?
Well I think it's obvious to everyone..
One man doesn't make a team and Scott Parker is individually no more responsible for Chelski's success' than West Ham's Failures.
It also confirms that we were a bad team but when Scott Parker played we were marginally better.
More importantly Hammersfan Here's a frightening fact for you - All this proves that you are so blinded by your obsession with Scotty that you have become careless and you have now run out of reasons to continue your vendetta.
IT'S TIME TO LET IT DROP NOW DON'T YOU THINK?
Come on Dave, we know that Parker's wage was in the region of £56,000 before and that it is now in the region of £83,000. The Dildo Brothers were not going to offer him less after putting him in a fantastic negotiating position by declaring he was the one player we wouldn't sell. According to your version, they announced to the world that Scotty was the most important player at the club and then suggested a drop in wages. Stretching credibility a bit there aren't we?
Now the FACTS:
1) Parker was given a contract extension on IMPROVED terms, with his salary matching the highest wage earner - Dyer who was on £83,000 a week.
2) Parker was a target of Spurs. By upping his salary, Sullivan & Gold hoped to persuade him to stay.
3) Parker left that contract unsigned for more than three weeks.
4) On the last day of the window, Keane was scheduled to go somewhere, and Babel had a helicopter waiting and was scheduled to go somewhere and Parker still hadn't signed that contract.
5) Then, out of the blue, Van der Vaart's price was reduced from £18m to £8m. Suddenly, Keane went nowhere, Babel went nowhere and Parker signed that contract.
Now, Keane subsequently ended up on loan to West Ham and Babel was subsequently shipped out of Liverpool. What blocked those two moves in August do you think? The papers were full of the fact - ahead of the last day - that Babel was wanted by Spurs, that West Ham wanted Keane and that Tottenham wanted Parker. 1 + 1 + 1 may equal five in your world of perpetual possibilities but in my world they add up to three!
So all you're left with at the end of the day, to cling on to obsession, is hearsay and speculation: FACT!
LOL if you like Dave but it isn't an obsession. The guy who exposed News International was accused of harbouring an obsession! It is a FOCUS on the MOST IMPORTANT player in our squad - and I don't think you would disagree with that.
Are Man City fans obsessed with Tevez? Are Arsenal fans obsessed with Fabregas? Parker IS THE STORY and has been the story for 12 months. I didn't make him the story, Sullivan and Gold made him the story when they put him up on a pedestal, and the journalists kept him there, building to his ludicrous Player of the year award.
Now, put yourself in the West Ham dressing room. You know you are not wanted or valued because of Sullivan and Gold announcement that the whole squad, Parker apart, was up for sale. Parker, however, is fire proof. If you lose the ball, the crowd turn on you, if Parker loses the ball, the cry goes up, "Bad luck Scotty!"
Let's go back to that game at West Brom. Who tried to make the final tackle for West Brom's first goal, coming in from the wrong side because he had been caught out of position? That would be Parker. Who gave away the free kick for the third West Brom goal? That would be Parker. Who assisted all three goals? I quote from the match report:
"The visitors needed something quick at the start of the second period and found it five minutes in thanks to Ba, who chested down Mark Noble's lofted pass and tucked the ball past Myhill" and "Hammers boss Avram Grant then threw on Frederic Piquionne for Boa Morte and the striker's impact was almost immediate as he nodded Noble's free-kick back across goal for Cole to head in and make it 3-2." and "Noble was the provider once more, delivering a cross that was not dealt with and fell to Ba, who volleyed against the turf and in."
So that would be Noble then.
Who scored twice? That would be Ba. Who else scored? Cole.
But who was hailed the hero of the day. That would be Parker.
So, Parker was not involved in ANY of the goals we scored and was found directly wanting for two of the goals we conceded, but Parker emerged as the hero because of the rallying cry he gave at half time! How do you feel if you are Noble or Ba? Fcuk me, is it any wonder the rest of the team developed a "shrug the shoulders" mentality?
And tell me, if Parker is so good at rallying the troops,why was he at the Chelsea v Spurs game rather than travelling with the team to Manchester for the game at Man City? Shouldn't he have been rallying the troops in that game too instead of cosying up to the Redknapps?
18:20 - Mate, listen - YOUR VENDETTA AGAINST PARKER IS AN OBSESSION! (and to be honest with you I'm starting to worry a little bit that trying to get through to you may even be becoming mine). It may not have started out that way but IT IS NOW! It's unhealthy for you as a person and it detracts from what otherwise is a bloody good blog!
Apart from the bit about Parker watching that shit match with his friends (you didn't follow him there did you?) everything you just said is absolutely right..BUT..NONE OF THIS IS SCOTT PARKER'S FAULT AND YOU REALLY NEED TO LET IT GO AND STOP SNIPING AT HIM! HE DOESN'T READ YOUR BLOG!
When I was born a long, long time ago (don't worry, it's not a fairy tale) it was a bit of a miracle to my parents as my mother for some reason couldn't reach full-term carrying boys. She even suffered a couple of miscarriages in the process. Anyway as a result there emerged a four year gap between myself and my older sister.
After my arrival, My parents, so relieved to finally have their baby boy gave me much more attention than they should have. Hence more than my sister had got. Obviously and understandably my sister became jealous of me and so grew her resentment toward me. of course this wasn't my fault it was my parents, but regardless, no matter what I ever did to subsequently earn my parents praise my sister would always find a way to put me down and snipe at me.
The more her friends and other people would say to her to leave me alone and "why you picking on him for, he's done nothing to you" the more she resented me until eventually I became her obsession. She would often spite herself if she thought it would spite me as well.
Of course I hated her when I was a kid and I never really understood what her problem was with me. But I got on with my life, we drifted apart and that was that. Or so I thought, Then a few years later I had a bad accident and spent some time in hospital. My sister was the first there and never left my side until she knew I was alright. Of course we made up and now we're really close. She said she never realised how much of her life had become consumed with her obsession of getting at me. I kind of felt sorry for her a bit but then I think it was a bloody pity that I was the one who had to have the accident so she could see the error of her ways.
Anyway mate, carry on carrying on if you must, but I'm gonna drop this now because I've already paid my dues. See you on another post brother!
coyScottParkerLovingHammersfans!
LOL fair enough mate.
Post a Comment