What is Daniel Levy's problem?

[DJinNJ]

Whilst Levey may well be a "deluded" moron or a shrewd businessman you kinda wish we had played his game with him as far as negotiations for the D & Ds were concerned

History of course but we might possibly have kept one or both or possibly got much more for them 12 months ago

Instead we role over....but will we for Parker?

What negotiations? Have you forgotten that Dembele had a release clause in his contract and that was all anyone had to pay to get him. As far a Dempsey is concerned, we were lucky that Villa made an offer because it meant that Spuds had to match that.

This game of poker has three players and Parker is perfectly entitled to sit on his hands and wait for Levy to accept an offer from a club that he wants to join and of course it does not have to be the highest offer if Spuds want or need to sell him. That is what happened when Crouch went from Portsmouth to Spurs - he would not sign for any of the clubs that offered more that Spuds.

You're right about Dembele of course, and Jol said he tried to convince him to stay by basically saying Spurs were too small for him. If we weren't obligated to accept the bid we certainly would have held out for more. I think with Dempsey we actually took a smaller bid from Spurs than Villa (6m vs 7m), but he didn't want to go to Villa. So it could be argued that they got the better of us on that one, but there wasn't much we could do. They came in at literally the last hour for a player they knew was unsettled, and they probably weren't desperate to get him considering they weren't making any inquiries until the last minute, so there was really nothing to negotiate. There was no time to hold out for more, it was take the 6m or leave it (and who knows, maybe they did come in with 5m and we got it to 6m). I'd blame Liverpool for that one, not Fulham's negotiations.

We should apply to same principle to the Parker negotiations... the player would (presumably) prefer to play in the Premier League, they want to get rid of him, we (hopefully) aren't desperate to sign him, so we should hold out at no more than 2m until they are forced to choose between accepting our bid or keeping a player they don't want. There's a risk Parker will blink before Spurs and just accept going to QPR, but the risk of missing out on him shouldn't bother us too much. With two weeks to go we should be able to find other options, and if not or we can't get anyone better than Parker then so be it. We'll be okay with what we have, and we may still get Diarra back who is probably better than Parker anyway if fully fit. And there's also a risk that QPR will up their bid, but if we match their accepted bid and he prefers to come here then we should just hold out and hope he plays hard ball with Spurs and refuses the QPR offer. Of course, the other possibility is that we give in and pay what Spurs want, but with all the complaints of how stingy the club is, in this case we should at least be optimistic that we won't pay too much. Yes, I know some people think 2m is too much, but I think even someone who rated Parker very highly would agree that a 100 increase% for being in the PL is absurd.

Unlike some others, I think he could be useful at the right price, though it does depend on Diarra's fitness. Is he overrated? Yes, but he's overrated for a player of the season three years ago and a starter for England in the last tournament. Is he old? Yes, but at 32 he doesn't increase the average age of our current midfield (36,30,30, and 32 if you count Diarra). Okay, that's not the best argument, but realistically the perfect CM isn't going to be available to Fulham every transfer window, so a good placeholder for a year or two is better than a long-term deal for an inadequate player. We have plenty of creativity to fill the front four, so for now that will have to compensate for the lack of creativity in midfield. We'd all like another Murphy but most clubs at our level don't have the luxury of a creative deep lying midfielder so I don't think we're at a disadvantage by not having one. And recall that last year we scored more (though only barely compared to the other post-Hodgson years) and allowed more goals (by a significant amount, other than his first year, half of which was pre-Hodgson and pre-Hangeland) than in any of our seasons with Murphy. So for one thing, even though the greater number of goals for and against is due to a departure from Hodgson's tactics, it is worth remembering that we relied on our defense rather than our offense during Murphy's heyday. And for another, these figures support the argument that more defensive cover should be a priority over creativity. If you got this far, thanks, I do tend to get carried away.

[Buffalo76]

I simply look at it this way. If Parker has us and the ha ha ha ha's after him and he has to THINK about where to go then i'm telling him to do one and disappear. Its an absolute no brainer. You've got a well run established Premier League club up against a badly run Championship club managed by a twitchy crook who can't be believed with anything that comes out of his cockney gob. And Parker needs to THINK about it?????  fp.gif

[Fulham76]

I simply look at it this way. If Parker has us and the ha ha ha ha's after him and he has to THINK about where to go then i'm telling him to do one and disappear. Its an absolute no brainer. You've got a well run established Premier League club up against a badly run Championship club managed by a twitchy crook who can't be believed with anything that comes out of his cockney gob. And Parker needs to THINK about it?????  fp.gif

Never thought about it that way but you're spot on. What the hell is there to think about? No doubt they'll be offering more money than us, that's their only selling point! No skill involved in what the ha ha's board do whatsoever.