Of Course Mr Mrs Tekkers would much prefer shopping in South Norwood High street and dining in the Cherries !

What noone lives in Norwood Du Sud?

I agree, although I'd be a little more generous towards Parish.

There's no doubt selling Murray and Jedi were awful moves BUT that decision lies at the door of Pardew, who's the real villain here. As he sought to impose his enormous ego on the club, getting rid of the dominant personalities went with the territory and that's why he wanted rid of those two dressing-room leaders. And at the time those decisions were made, Pardew was in his purple period at Palace; he had leverage. What's a chairman supposed to do in that situation? Back his manager (the man he's hired to deal with the players) or back his own judgment (when he's a businessman, not a football man). I can see why Parish went with the former. It wasn't the right decision, certainly given Pardew's rapid demise the next season, but it was probably a decision you'd want your owner to make. We all know what happens when chairmen start making football decisions. So the departures of FFS and Jedi, for me can't be laid at Parish's door.

With regard to Wickham and Benteke, again, the chairman is usually only giving the manager what he's asked for. Would we really be happy if Vieira wanted a player and the chairman refused? Hardly the best way to retain your manager. That said, slightly different cases. Wickham, as I recall, was in his very best period when he signed the contract and at the time, he was starting to look like a real handful. However, given his injury even then, the contract was an enormous risk. I can see why Parish gave him the deal but in light of Wickham's injury history and, by all accounts, the fact that he was known not to be the world's hardest trainer, I think the decision wasn't a good one. That deal can probably be chalked up as a net minus on the Parish balance sheet.

Benteke I disagree. Presuming the deal fits in our budget (this is key), he's been decent this year and worth signing. First, we all need to get over the fact that Benteke isn't the player who had two glorious years at Aston Villa. That version of Benteke is long gone, and judging Benteke now against Benteke then is pointless. Second, he's a good role player. He does one thing very well (heading the ball and providing an aerial threat), he works hard, he defends, and his hold-up play is reasonable. Is he a 20-goal a year leader of the line in the Premier League? No, obviously. But as long as we're not giving him a Harry Kane-sized contract, that's not relevant. We shouldn't expect him to be that. As a squad player who starts maybe half the games and comes off the bench for the other half, Benteke is an experienced, capable, top-notch second-tier Premier League forward and his points of comparison are really players like Wood or Pukki. I'd have Beneteke over either of those. He'll give us ten or so goals a year in his present role and that's perfectly acceptable for the second rank forward in your squad. He also seems to be a good, committed member of the team; happy and a positive influence on those around him. Re-signing Benteke was a good move as long as he's on a sensible contract and there's no reason to think he isn't.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

plus he would have to re-learn where all the speed cameras are!

My view: Benteke earns roughly £6 million a year. In comparison and for context:

Ings - £6.7 million
Lacazette - £9.5 million
Iheanacho - £3.4 million
Moura - £4.1 million
Antonio - £2.4 million
Calum Wilson - £2.5 million

I would say Benteke is definitely paid more than he's worth, but not horribly so. He obviously adds something to the group, perhaps in ways that are less obvious to fans. Otherwise, we wouldn't have retained him. So did we overpay him? Yes. Is he the biggest waste of money and space in the league? No. His contract clearly favours the player but it's not the worst in history. It's not awful. And it's only two years so we probably paid a premium because he's an experienced and good bridge to whoever comes next; the long-term answer we'll develop alongside Eze, Olise, et al in the next generation team. I'm fine with the Benteke deal; it's not a great one but I can understand why we offered it and I have no serious problems with it.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

I agree with all of this.
I Would also add that as an incoming Manager, when asked 'Can we sell Benteke', he would almost certainly say 'No'. He's one of the highest profile players at the club, and Vieira may have thought that he wanted some time with him to re Ignite his Form.
It's a big risk coming to a new club - so you want all current players - 1st 11 especially - to stay, to give you the best chance to transistion, and to find and make the correct changes.

I found it odd, therefore, that we sold Andros - but perhaps we needed the fee, and there was the compromise (especially when no bid for tekkers was forthcoming!)

"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"