Why Parker doesn’t represent value for money

There has been a fair amount of debate over Scott Parker and whether or not he would be a good addition to the Chelsea squad to cover for long-term injury casualty Michael Essien.

Personally, I’m unconvinced by Parker and I do not think it is a deal that is worth pursuing considering the players we already have in the squad and I don’t believe he is up to Chelsea’s standards.

Others argue that he was unfortunate during his first stint at the club and that he could ‘do a job’ for the Stamford Bridge club, but it’s a short-term measure and a costly one at that, which is one of the reasons why our London rivals Tottenham have cooled interest on the England international.

Harry Redknapp told the Sunday Mirror recently:

“If you take into account the fee of around £8 million, signing-on fees and wages you’re talking about a £30 million deal.

There is no way the club would sanction a deal for a 30-year-old who would have no resale value at the end of his contract”.

Now, although ‘Arry is mostly accustomed to talking crap from his car to Sky Sports reporters, but he’s right in what he says here and I do not think Parker is a smart option for us either, especially as any deal would likely be a permanent one and it doesn’t represent value for money in my opinion.

Also, I don’t see Parker worrying the likes of Jon Obi Mikel, Ramires, Frank Lampard or even Josh McEachran for the midfield positions. If we really do need to buy in a Essien replacement then there are far better alternatives out there.