Get Lost Abramovich - Blast Charlton (1 Viewer)

Zlatan

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2003
23,028
#1
01/22/2004. Charlton chairman Martin Simons has told Chelsea's owner Roman Abramovich to "get lost" following the Blues' attempt to sign midfielder Scott Parker.

The Addicks rejected a second offer from Chelsea worth £7.5m earlier this week and insist they are not interested in doing business with the Russian billionaire.

"We don't want Chelsea's money," he said. "I say 'Get lost Abramovich' and I think I speak for the rest of football.

"Chelsea must be shown they can't just take our best players without us putting up a fight," said Simons.

He added: "We are fourth in the league, they are third. In the last few weeks we have been catching them up.

"So it hurts when a club with their buying power has the ability to see the club beneath them and say 'Oh, let's spend a few million and take their best player'.

"We don't want Chelsea's money. We are not the Charlton of old, where if someone offered us £1m for a player we would ask for £1.25m."

However, he added that Parker, who has four-and-a-half years left to run on his current contract, does have his price.

He said: "Obviously, if they were to offer us, say, £25m then that is an offer you can't refuse."
Rob Hogley
 

mikhail

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2003
9,575
#2
Chelsea actually marked that last bid as their final offer,so I expect we'll see Parker signed in the summer, if then.

I hate the stupid reactions of medium-sized clubs when a bigger club bids for one of their players. Are they somehow evil for wanting to sign a good player?
 

Layce Erayce

Senior Member
Aug 11, 2002
9,116
#4
++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++
Chelsea actually marked that last bid as their final offer,so I expect we'll see Parker signed in the summer, if then.

I hate the stupid reactions of medium-sized clubs when a bigger club bids for one of their players. Are they somehow evil for wanting to sign a good player?
mikhail you cant blame them from looking it it solely from their pov. especially considering the fat that theyre weaker, and being the underdogs would justify the way they feel.

clubs with buying power would justify it with a "survival of the fittest" explanation, while clubs like charlton would do what they did.


personally, im a socialist so id be on charlton's side. however i do feel the hostility was unnecessary. if they player is smart/wise/not greedy he'd refuse the move seeing that he'd get no playing time
 

mikhail

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2003
9,575
#5
++ [ originally posted by [LAC] ] ++
mikhail you cant blame them from looking it it solely from their pov. especially considering the fat that theyre weaker, and being the underdogs would justify the way they feel.
...
personally, im a socialist so id be on charlton's side. however i do feel the hostility was unnecessary. if they player is smart/wise/not greedy he'd refuse the move seeing that he'd get no playing time
I don't think it justifies their position at all. How do English first division clubs feel when EPL clubs come in and buy their star players midseason to fuel some religation battle, or to cover for some injury, or to help a push for a UEFA Cup place? To cast a team like Charlton, one of the ten richest clubs in England as an "underdog" is just plain silly. Sure, they're smaller than Chelsea or Man U, but they should just get on with it.
 
Jul 12, 2002
5,666
#6
++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++
I don't think it justifies their position at all. How do English first division clubs feel when EPL clubs come in and buy their star players midseason to fuel some religation battle, or to cover for some injury, or to help a push for a UEFA Cup place? To cast a team like Charlton, one of the ten richest clubs in England as an "underdog" is just plain silly. Sure, they're smaller than Chelsea or Man U, but they should just get on with it.
Charlton may be one of the ten richest clubs in England, but Chelsea has so much more money than them, I can say that they are the underdgo. And I do think that it's unfair that Chelsea or Man U, can just take players from lesser teams. It contributes to the lack of parity that infests football.
 

mikhail

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2003
9,575
#7
I suggest that the only solution to that is to force clubs to register their players every season - eliminating mid-season signings. Of course, small clubs then argue that they need the oppertunity to sell a player if they're in financial difficulty, and religation-threatened clubs often need to bring in a new face, clubs need injury-replacements, etc.
 

mikhail

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2003
9,575
#9
++ [ originally posted by [LAC] ] ++
Actually I think loans would be in order when clubs are in such trouble, Mikhail. Why cant clubs loan players to others in the same league?
Eh, they can actually. :D Loans might solve on-field problems, but they can't help if a club is in serious need of cash. Though maybe you can just say that they shouldn't be in that position to begin with!
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)