Exactly how appealing is a Parker Loan deal instead?

After posting about Scott Parker on here yesterday, West Ham Co-Owner David Sullivan appeared on SkySportsNews and confirmed that West Ham would be willing to let Parker leave on loan for a season for a "substantial fee".

Now it's understandable that West Ham want to keep hold of him but understand he should be playing in the Premier League so it's admirable of them really to even suggest the idea.

For Parker, you would imagine it would be an ideal situation after recently getting back into the England squad.

Of course Sullivan and West Ham are hedging their bets on bouncing straight back into the Premier League with promotion from the Championship at the first attempt. It's a big big ask, but with Sam Allardyce at the helm they have as good a chance as anyone.

So it leads me to Chelsea and you would have to say with Michael Essien being out for at least six months it would be an ideal situation. The Guardian have already had their say today on this and by all accounts it is something that is possible.

For me, it's a perfect situation to replace Essien. Ok there would be a fee involved but Parker would be far cheaper than anyone else, he knows the club and most of the players and more importantly AVB.

I would be happy if this loan deal instead of a permanent transfer came off. The question is to you the Chelsea fan reading this:

Would you be happy signing Parker on loan?

KTBFFH

Check out my blog posts on the Official Chelsea Website - http://bit.ly/mRUOqw
Follow me and my blog on Twitter - http://bit.ly/gP9Dwt
Follow the blog on Facebook - http://on.fb.me/i5OTbj
Grab my RSS Feed - http://bit.ly/ijgiIT
Sign up to my email updates - http://bit.ly/eTEVrt
My YouTube Channel - http://bit.ly/giLSqr