Wednesday, 13 July 2011

Sullivan Entertains Parallel Parker Universe!

Would you believe it, the Gobby One fancies LOANING Scotty Parker to money bags Chelsea. Why? Because we really like Parker apparently and he still has four or five good years in him, so what could be better than lending him to Chelsea for the best of those years?

Why exactly are Chelsea looking to loan rather than buy the guy? Because, of course, they know that with his all action style and history of injuries, he has a limited shelf life. Even super rich Chelsea don't want to commit to paying the guy £83,000 a week into his footballing dotage.

Press reports suggest that Tottenham are no longer interested. It seems that Levy may have won the argument with Redknapp, even if they bank £35million plus for Modric. Why blow £20m of that on Parker's fee and three years wages? You would have to be as stupid as...well as stupid as Sullivan & Gold to entertain a 3 year wage bill of £12million for a huff and puff merchant who has turned 30!

Anyway, I'm off to buy a lottery ticket for the Euro Millions. I only have to pay £165million for a ticket and if my number comes up, I win £2!
at

12 comments:

  1. Anonymous13 July 2011 at 16:16

    You talk so much shit!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hammersfan13 July 2011 at 16:21

    Very constructive comment Stacy. Cheer yourself up by slipping on the stockings and doing the hoovering.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Rocco Lampones13 July 2011 at 16:36

    It's a pretty fair observation I think! - Max

    ReplyDelete
  4. Shane.13 July 2011 at 16:39

    Loaning him is ridiculous. We lose a player, and barely get the funds to replace him. We should sell him for £5m and let him leave with a pat on the back and a well done. He's been a good player for 3 years, nothing more, nothing less. I'd much rather sell and replace him with someone younger and fitter, or trust youth and free transfers and strengthen other areas.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hammersfan13 July 2011 at 16:39

    What, my comment about Parker Max?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hammersfan13 July 2011 at 16:41

    By the way Stacy, registering a new Google identity doesn't disguise your identity any more than that frock, wig and stockings do. Your Adam's apple and size nine shoes give you away. That and the ugly mush! By the way, it is spelt Maximilian.

    ReplyDelete
  7. fred14914 July 2011 at 01:19

    actually loaning him out to bad if we are getting the rumoured 4-5 mill fee as whe nwe get him back we ca nalways get another 3-4 mill afterthat way we have got a decent fee

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous14 July 2011 at 12:34

    We are not competing at the same level of Chelsea. Just because at 31 (next year) he may not be good enough for Chelsea, doesn't mean he won't be good enough for us.

    Still, I expect nothing less from HF who never misses an opportunity to put the boot in as far as Parker is concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hammersfan14 July 2011 at 17:32

    Funnily enough, next season we all hope to be competing at the same level as Chelsea - that would be the Premiership level wouldn't it? Can we compete with Chelsea financially? No. But we are willing to pay Parker more in wages than Chelsea would pay him. Please explain the logic of that!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hammersfan14 July 2011 at 17:33

    Fred, the 4 to 5 million fee quoted incldes £3.5m to Parker in wages. We stand to get £1million to £2million. Try rreplacing Parker for that! The deal is madness and just shows the desperate corner we have painted ourselves into by giving Parker that ludicrously long and inflated contract!

    ReplyDelete
  11. fred14914 July 2011 at 18:33

    yes and them wages we get off create more money to spend either way and whe nwe ge thim back we could still sell him for 3-4 millio anyway. I just want us to sell him thoguh i say settle for 7 mill from villa then leave it at that

    ReplyDelete
  12. USA Dave15 July 2011 at 11:43

    What about the wages saved? your math is appalling

    ReplyDelete