bcfc seattle Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 Is it just me or does it seem a poor career decision to join Chelski? Joining a team where he might not even play regularly, from one where he was "the man". Granted he'll make a whole lot more in wages, but I feel sorry for Charlton. They go out of their way to pay him mr ethan they really can afford and 6 months later he basically forces them to sell him. Then why sign the freakin contract Scott? They had a nice clause in a contract for one of the coaches round here, (ended up hurting him), where he got a large signing bonus but the bonus was in form of a loan which he could keep if he stayed for X number of years. I'd like to see something simular in some of these "smaller" teams contracts. As in sure we'll give you a million or 2 to sign but if you leave before the contract is up you need to pay it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pogue mahone Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 i have no idea why chelskov (chelski would imply a polish not russian influence) are buying parker because he is not in the class of player they can afford. they should be trying to get the likes of michael ballack. if they sign parker the fans will turn on him at the first sign of loss of form, demanding something newer and shinier, and he will quickly be discarded. what does parker give them that lampard or makalele or geremi or cole don't already? to make an obvious point chelsea don't need any more players. they need direction from parker's point of view, i think it would be a disastrous move. he has it pretty good at the moment. if charlton make the champions league the achievement will be far sweeter than anything he could accomplish with chelsea this season, short of scoring a couple of goals in the european cup final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.