PDA

View Full Version : Scott Parker and Glen Johnson


The Omen
13-10-2004, 05:32 AM
Both players seem to be available on loan.

Yesterday I heard Scott Parker had turned down a loan move to take him to Wigan and Glen Johnson has submitted a loan request today after failing to hold down a regular first team spot.

Surely if we tried, we would stand a good chance of getting both of these players and I think they both would add something to the team. Obviously, we couldn't get them until January.

Thoughts?

Men At Work
13-10-2004, 05:37 AM
Can't players only transfer to other Premier League clubs on a season-long loan?

hugosabin
13-10-2004, 05:41 AM
I'm not sure about that but both would be very welcome arrivals. Wages could be a problem if we have to contribute. If they can get loan moves within the premiership though I would imagine a number of other clubs would also be interested!

chelmsfordeagle
13-10-2004, 06:00 AM
as is on another thread Parker is reported to be on 42 grand a week, which means that pretty much any club that would want him would be priced out. Of course the loanee paying 100% of the wages only applies between prem clubs, hence wigan's interest.

I have no idea on johnson's wages but imagine them also to be very high.

I think the prem bringing in the clause that you have to pay 100% of the wages is a good idea and will stop clubs buying up players without the intention of immediatly considering them for the 1st team.

chelmsfordeagle
13-10-2004, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by Men At Work
Can't players only transfer to other Premier League clubs on a season-long loan?

no. you can do loans for however long you want but they have to be signed during the transfer window.

sydnsteve
13-10-2004, 06:26 AM
Can't afford either

ANDYEAGLE
13-10-2004, 07:56 AM
I doubt whether Parker is on 42k a week more like 25-30k but anyway he is likely to get a permanent transfer with many suitors in January. As much as I would love him to come to Palace I think it is extremely unlikely.
Johnson is a good player but we are well covered in that area, dont feel the need to splash out big wages on him.

chelmsfordeagle
13-10-2004, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by ANDYEAGLE
I doubt whether Parker is on 42k a week more like 25-30k but anyway he is likely to get a permanent transfer with many suitors in January. As much as I would love him to come to Palace I think it is extremely unlikely.
Johnson is a good player but we are well covered in that area, dont feel the need to splash out big wages on him.

the 42K a week was the reason he was in such a rush to leave charlton apparently. but the wages are specualtion and you could well be right

SE25Eagle
13-10-2004, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by hugosabin
I'm not sure about that but both would be very welcome arrivals. Wages could be a problem if we have to contribute. If they can get loan moves within the premiership though I would imagine a number of other clubs would also be interested!


On some loan deals the clubs split the wages 50/50,but i would imagine this would still be to much for us to afford :rolleyes:

chelmsfordeagle
13-10-2004, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by SE25Eagle
On some loan deals the clubs split the wages 50/50,but i would imagine this would still be to much for us to afford :rolleyes:

not between to prem clubs they don't (can't)

welcome to the bbs, suprised nobody had used your username before

Maidstoned Eagle
13-10-2004, 09:46 AM
I only think Johnson would add something to the squad, personally.

18mcpalace
13-10-2004, 09:48 AM
With Prem-to-Prem clubs having to pay 100% of the wages - I would imagine both Parker and Johnson would be out of our league.

Especially with Butterfield coming back from injury - would we really be that desperate to bring in Glen Johnson on whatever wages he is on?

TheCharmer
13-10-2004, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Maidstoned Eagle
I only think Johnson would add something to the squad, personally.

Eh?

Parker was bought for 10 million a year ago, after consistently performing well at Charlton, forcing himself into the England squad in the process. Of course he d add quality to our squad

He want s to stay in London, won't go back to Charlton, so Spurs are the only team he ll possibly goto who can afford him.

davematt
13-10-2004, 09:57 AM
I don't see why we could not get him on loan in January. He is begging for first team football, we can DEFINETLY offer him that. He can then put himself in the transfer market for a move in the summer. On the wages, I am sure Chelsea & ourselves could come to a agreement over that, and if available, we should try.

andy m
13-10-2004, 10:03 AM
Chelsea and ourselves can't come to any arrangement over Parker's wages as rules dictate we'd have to pay all of them. Its extremely likely that Parker is on 42,000.00 a week, or at least near to it, and when he's been at a small club before he's behaved like a spoilt brat. Good player, but there are better who are both cheaper and less disruptive in my opinion.

cpfc_spc1982
13-10-2004, 10:17 AM
parker was one of the top five midfielders in the premiership last year before he went chels in my opinion.

nicky
13-10-2004, 10:23 AM
There are ways and means for chelsea to subsidize Parkers wages.

Shipp Ahoy!
13-10-2004, 10:28 AM
1.) Parker would be a FANTASTIC signing in any capacity. Anyone with the remote idea he wouldn't add something to Palace or would be nothing less then a fantastic player to get in just stop now and find another thread.

2.) We would have to pay 100% of his wages, that is non negotiable, even if Chelski were prepared to pay all of them. Rules are rules, and they won't be broken for our sake.

3.) We wouldn't be able to afford his wages and the fact of the matter is he won't be coming here.

4.) It's a nice dream, but that is all it is.

Pezzadoner
13-10-2004, 11:02 AM
Aren't teams only allowed three loan signings at any one time?

If so that would mean we could only have one of them(if we could afford/they wanted to come) as we already have Ventola and Sorondo on loan for the season.

Geezer
13-10-2004, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Pezzadoner
Aren't teams only allowed three loan signings at any one time?

If so that would mean we could only have one of them(if we could afford/they wanted to come) as we already have Ventola and Sorondo on loan for the season.

And Kaviedes.

Kirby
13-10-2004, 11:17 AM
Seriously doubt these would happen.

We don't need Johnson anyway, with Boyce and Butterfield in the squad.

Parker is undoubtedly a good player but the fact he's on 42k a week and coming from one of the big clubs could possibly lead to unrest in the squad.

We should stay clear and carry on with our current transfer policy.

Pezzadoner
13-10-2004, 11:25 AM
Good point about Kavi being another loanee.

But can someone clear it for me whether he's actually on loan or signed?
On the official website it says he joined for 2 Mill.

gold76
13-10-2004, 11:50 AM
Both quality players, but cant see either of them coming to se25 in the near future

jazman
13-10-2004, 11:52 AM
Not at Palace - more likely someone like Middlesbrough would have and afford them.

gilberts knife
13-10-2004, 01:18 PM
I would love both,no big fee just wages!,lets ask the croydon advertiser to pay half the wages!:lux: :lux:

Addickted
13-10-2004, 07:36 PM
Parker is class. One of the best players I've seen in a Charlton shirt. He pushed us into a Champions League position last season and made us truly believe we'd make Europe.

He had an awesome game against Chelsea at The Valley last season, which prompted his move to The Bridge in January. I cannot believe that he can't even make their bench at present.

I'd welcome him back to The Valley in the blink of an eye.

He is on 42k a week basic and Curbs has already put some feelers out about getting him back in January - I understand he is willing to pay the 5m that Chelsea will require as a minimum. I'm sure that there are several Premier teams that are also prepared to meet that valuation.

However, I understand he wants to stay in London (who can blame him) and probably only us and Spurs would be prepared to match that valuation. Parker is a Spurs fan. I think even your most optimistic supporters would have to agree that he would prefer us over you.

Johnson on the other hand...................

How do you think Butterfield would feel if you picked him up on loan?

cpfcben
13-10-2004, 07:39 PM
We don't need Johnson. Butterfield and Boyce are two excellent right backs.

SE25Eagle
14-10-2004, 08:52 AM
I think even your most optimistic supporters would have to agree that he would prefer us over you.


How times change a??

10 years ago we was the biggest team in S London by miles....

Then me thinks you wouldn't be making statments like that

Sir.S.C Remembered
15-10-2004, 09:45 AM
Think Parker is more needed than Johnson as Butterfield should be back now

Chris K
15-10-2004, 09:57 AM
As a possible way of getting round the wages of Parker, would Chelsea not be able to pay us 30K p/w for us to take him on loan, we then pay the full 42K p/w to them?