Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Jake Forster Caskey - waiting to hear if club will exercise 1 year option (p11)
Comments
-
The Sandgaards really are an inept bunch, why offer Jake the contract in the first place if they didn’t want to pay him the wages that they offered him for reaching X amount of league games.4
-
Maybe TS thinks he can still get a fee for him in January.1
-
Head and shoulders above everyone on the pitch last night even during a brief cameo. Best 10 mins I've seen from any Charlton player this season.
The game stops around him when he has the ball. He's composed, holds his head up, finds the gaps and has perfect pace on his passes. He also passes in front of the wide players, so they don't have to break stride or turn back on themselves. At the level we play at, an in-form JFC looks like Modric. He has to play and if he's not playing it would be interesting to understand exactly why.8 -
I have been banging on about this for weeks now. He should be playing in the league. If Garner doesn't play him because he rates him below Morgan and Macgrandles ( and potentially Fraser), Garner is an idiot simple as that.
Garner doesn't strike me as an idiot so why isn't he playing. Even after last night he didn't give a straight answer, he started a ramble about how good Macgrandles is - which he obviously isn't.
I'm not saying I would necessarily start Jake but I'd certainly start building his minutes up in the league games. Even up to this point , we have thrown points away in the home games where we couldn't break teams down , FGR, Cambridge, Oxford for example where the inclusion of Jake at some point would very likely have given us all 3 points.5 -
Agreed, he's perfect for games where the opponents sit deep and leave us no space. Before JFC came on, it was so tedious to watch as we passed from side to side, advanced slightly up the flanks, then went backwards again.alburyaddick said:I have been banging on about this for weeks now. He should be playing in the league. If Garner doesn't play him because he rates him below Morgan and Macgrandles ( and potentially Fraser), Garner is an idiot simple as that.
Garner doesn't strike me as an idiot so why isn't he playing. Even after last night he didn't give a straight answer, he started a ramble about how good Macgrandles is - which he obviously isn't.
I'm not saying I would necessarily start Jake but I'd certainly start building his minutes up in the league games. Even up to this point , we have thrown points away in the home games where we couldn't break teams down , FGR, Cambridge, Oxford for example where the inclusion of Jake at some point would very likely have given us all 3 points.3 -
How anyone can believe that JFC is NOT the victim of our owner's cost cutting project is surely delusional.
BG clearly had his fingers crossed behind his back when he made his recent statement about the issue.
As I've posted before, our current performances & success are due to the management of ONE man & IN SPITE of another's .8 -
Fanny Fanackapan said:How anyone can believe that JFC is NOT the victim of our owner's cost cutting project is surely delusional.
BG clearly had his fingers crossed behind his back when he made his recent statement about the issue.
As I've posted before, our current performances & success are due to the management of ONE man & IN SPITE of another's .
I’m genuinely surprised I keep seeing comments like ‘surely he has to start’. I think BG would’ve picked him had been able to. It’s obvious he’s been told he can’t play in the league.Fanny Fanackapan said:How anyone can believe that JFC is NOT the victim of our owner's cost cutting project is surely delusional.
BG clearly had his fingers crossed behind his back when he made his recent statement about the issue.
As I've posted before, our current performances & success are due to the management of ONE man & IN SPITE of another's .The snippet with the SLP. BG deflected the whole conversation to supporting Conor McGrandles and we haven’t seen the best of him yet, he hardly talked about JFC.I’m sure JFC’s desire not to be here has played a part in his thinking, but not to the point BG wouldn’t want what a lot of people perceive to be one of our better players.2 -
He did about a month ago, but that doesn’t mean it’s definitely true.Redhenry said:Hopefully Garner has put a lid on those contract rumours...
https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/ben-garner-charlton-midfielders-lack-of-league-one-game-time-not-down-to-contract-appearances-trigger/“No, the only decision I make on the team is a football decision – what I think is right for the group or what I think is right for the club,” Garner told the South London Press when asked about Forster-Caskey. “I’m not that abreast on the contract situations, if I’m honest.
“I spoke to our secretary a few weeks ago and he said: ‘Do you want me to let you know if a player is three appearances away from a rise?’. I told him I didn’t want to know because I don’t want that to come into my thinking when I’m picking the team and selection. I want to just be picking it on merit – work on the training ground and performances on the pitch.”
1 -
JFC will be the first player ever to lift silverware without playing a league game all season.
“When Jake, goes up, to lift the Pizza / Carabao / FA Cup…..we’ll be there, we’ll be there!”3 -
I can’t see why there would be a clause that triggers a pay rise after 1 league appearance. That seems ridiculous. Much more likely that because of his injury history, his extended contract has a lower basic wage but high appearance fee so Garner will only use him in the league if really necessary which has put him behind McGrandles and Morgan so far this season.I think he will be on the bench on Saturday (as he was once earlier in the season when McGrandles was out) but might actually be used after his performance on Tuesday2
-
Sponsored links:
-
Personally I would keep/play JFC and loan Morgan out in January to cover any extra costs. But I can see why the club would want to move JFC on and get more minutes for the younger Morgan and Henry. If JFC hadn’t done so well on Tuesday then I would have guessed Henry would be on the bench on Saturday0
-
The next league game would be his 5th one since the contract was originally signed. That seems a more likely milestone.NabySarr said:I can’t see why there would be a clause that triggers a pay rise after 1 league appearance. That seems ridiculous. Much more likely that because of his injury history, his extended contract has a lower basic wage but high appearance fee so Garner will only use him in the league if really necessary which has put him behind McGrandles and Morgan so far this season.I think he will be on the bench on Saturday (as he was once earlier in the season when McGrandles was out) but might actually be used after his performance on Tuesday
The measure is "has he recovered from the injury to the extent he can play league 1 football?".
I think he has answered that. If posters/Garner/Martin don't think he is suitable/good enough is a different question which is obviously, as with all players, open to debate.
I honestly still think JFC gets a lot of Internet grief for not being Josh Cullen.0 -
Garner's an idiot either waykillerandflash said:
Agreed, he's perfect for games where the opponents sit deep and leave us no space. Before JFC came on, it was so tedious to watch as we passed from side to side, advanced slightly up the flanks, then went backwards again.alburyaddick said:I have been banging on about this for weeks now. He should be playing in the league. If Garner doesn't play him because he rates him below Morgan and Macgrandles ( and potentially Fraser), Garner is an idiot simple as that.
Garner doesn't strike me as an idiot so why isn't he playing. Even after last night he didn't give a straight answer, he started a ramble about how good Macgrandles is - which he obviously isn't.
I'm not saying I would necessarily start Jake but I'd certainly start building his minutes up in the league games. Even up to this point , we have thrown points away in the home games where we couldn't break teams down , FGR, Cambridge, Oxford for example where the inclusion of Jake at some point would very likely have given us all 3 points.
If he thinks McGrandles is any sort of player, Garner's an idiot.
If he thinks we believe one syllable of the denial of the owner's financial constraints on JFC's appearances, Garner's an idiot.
Add to that the clumsy deflection when asked about Jake's performance this week. Double down with risible bullshit about McGrandles being any good "...you haven't seen what he's got..." erm yes we have you lying buffoon, we've seen him play, the brevity of his contribution owed more to the bungling clogger doing his best to hide for most of his later appearances, the less said about his clownish debut the better
Garner has sought to include McGrandles whenever possible despite how naffing awful he's been. Frankly, JFC on one leg would be a safer bet.1 -
I have been meaning to ask for a while. What do you think of Ben Garner?Billy_Mix said:
Garner's an idiot either waykillerandflash said:
Agreed, he's perfect for games where the opponents sit deep and leave us no space. Before JFC came on, it was so tedious to watch as we passed from side to side, advanced slightly up the flanks, then went backwards again.alburyaddick said:I have been banging on about this for weeks now. He should be playing in the league. If Garner doesn't play him because he rates him below Morgan and Macgrandles ( and potentially Fraser), Garner is an idiot simple as that.
Garner doesn't strike me as an idiot so why isn't he playing. Even after last night he didn't give a straight answer, he started a ramble about how good Macgrandles is - which he obviously isn't.
I'm not saying I would necessarily start Jake but I'd certainly start building his minutes up in the league games. Even up to this point , we have thrown points away in the home games where we couldn't break teams down , FGR, Cambridge, Oxford for example where the inclusion of Jake at some point would very likely have given us all 3 points.
If he thinks McGrandles is any sort of player, Garner's an idiot.
If he thinks we believe one syllable of the denial of the owner's financial constraints on JFC's appearances, Garner's an idiot.
Add to that the clumsy deflection when asked about Jake's performance this week. Double down with risible bullshit about McGrandles being any good "...you haven't seen what he's got..." erm yes we have you lying buffoon, we've seen him play, the brevity of his contribution owed more to the bungling clogger doing his best to hide for most of his later appearances, the less said about his clownish debut the better
Garner has sought to include McGrandles whenever possible despite how naffing awful he's been. Frankly, JFC on one leg would be a safer bet.11 -
There have been a number on here that have laid out bare information around JFC’s situation which came from various sources, but which amounted to the exact same scenario. 1 game is not the trigger, amounts payable have been incorrectly, as far as I know, quoted, but otherwise the situation is what it is and I remain in admiration of JFC’s professionalism to training and playing when called upon in the cups in the situation he is now in. Good on him and I hope he goes on to better things, not dissimilar to Connor last season.
You probably want to be somewhere when you feel wanted…and with the talent you have at your disposal.3 -
It is a brilliant option to be able to switch out Fraser for JFC or vice versa during a game in order to maintain intensity if the one chosen to start is tiring. Or even to play them together.
I have always been a big fan of JFC. Surely Garner has to start using him in the squad for league games.2 -
But then all the conspiracy theories wont stack up!NabySarr said:I can’t see why there would be a clause that triggers a pay rise after 1 league appearance. That seems ridiculous. Much more likely that because of his injury history, his extended contract has a lower basic wage but high appearance fee so Garner will only use him in the league if really necessary which has put him behind McGrandles and Morgan so far this season.I think he will be on the bench on Saturday (as he was once earlier in the season when McGrandles was out) but might actually be used after his performance on Tuesday
0 -
If he's good enough, he will play!5
-
To be fair to BG he has to play this diplomatically. I’m sure he knows that we’re all well aware (or perhaps most people are) that there must be something going on behind the scenes to have not seen him play in the league. Yet he’s not going to admit to this, knowing it will create a shit storm. Re: McGrandles, from what I’ve seen, he doesn’t look very good but BG is just trying to do the right thing by him and build his confidence up for when he does return. Do I think he’ll come back and make a difference, probably not, but he’s had a crap start to his time here, much like Kirk last season and everyone has been very quick to pile in with how shit he is.Billy_Mix said:
Garner's an idiot either waykillerandflash said:
Agreed, he's perfect for games where the opponents sit deep and leave us no space. Before JFC came on, it was so tedious to watch as we passed from side to side, advanced slightly up the flanks, then went backwards again.alburyaddick said:I have been banging on about this for weeks now. He should be playing in the league. If Garner doesn't play him because he rates him below Morgan and Macgrandles ( and potentially Fraser), Garner is an idiot simple as that.
Garner doesn't strike me as an idiot so why isn't he playing. Even after last night he didn't give a straight answer, he started a ramble about how good Macgrandles is - which he obviously isn't.
I'm not saying I would necessarily start Jake but I'd certainly start building his minutes up in the league games. Even up to this point , we have thrown points away in the home games where we couldn't break teams down , FGR, Cambridge, Oxford for example where the inclusion of Jake at some point would very likely have given us all 3 points.
If he thinks McGrandles is any sort of player, Garner's an idiot.
If he thinks we believe one syllable of the denial of the owner's financial constraints on JFC's appearances, Garner's an idiot.
Add to that the clumsy deflection when asked about Jake's performance this week. Double down with risible bullshit about McGrandles being any good "...you haven't seen what he's got..." erm yes we have you lying buffoon, we've seen him play, the brevity of his contribution owed more to the bungling clogger doing his best to hide for most of his later appearances, the less said about his clownish debut the better
Garner has sought to include McGrandles whenever possible despite how naffing awful he's been. Frankly, JFC on one leg would be a safer bet.
can’t be easy. No wonder BG wants to try and support him.
0 -
I would agree that he should be in the squad for league games, but in truth I’m not sure anything I saw last night is proper evidence to support that. In the last 15-20 mins Stevenage were sitting a lot deeper and not hassling our midfield around the halfway line. He had the freedom to pause, check and turn which hadn’t been an option for the midfielders in the first hour0
-
Sponsored links:
-
Redhenry - I always value your posts highly, but you have consistently said this and its the one area where I cannot understand your position. His pedigree, experience, performance and talent surely make him good enough in the 3rd division in this team !Redhenry said:If he's good enough, he will play!24 -
Yes, and if he eventually improves as much as Kirk has...He still won't be good enoughcabbles said:
To be fair to BG he has to play this diplomatically. I’m sure he knows that we’re all well aware (or perhaps most people are) that there must be something going on behind the scenes to have not seen him play in the league. Yet he’s not going to admit to this, knowing it will create a shit storm. Re: McGrandles, from what I’ve seen, he doesn’t look very good but BG is just trying to do the right thing by him and build his confidence up for when he does return. Do I think he’ll come back and make a difference, probably not, but he’s had a crap start to his time here, much like Kirk last season and everyone has been very quick to pile in with how shit he is.Billy_Mix said:
Garner's an idiot either waykillerandflash said:
Agreed, he's perfect for games where the opponents sit deep and leave us no space. Before JFC came on, it was so tedious to watch as we passed from side to side, advanced slightly up the flanks, then went backwards again.alburyaddick said:I have been banging on about this for weeks now. He should be playing in the league. If Garner doesn't play him because he rates him below Morgan and Macgrandles ( and potentially Fraser), Garner is an idiot simple as that.
Garner doesn't strike me as an idiot so why isn't he playing. Even after last night he didn't give a straight answer, he started a ramble about how good Macgrandles is - which he obviously isn't.
I'm not saying I would necessarily start Jake but I'd certainly start building his minutes up in the league games. Even up to this point , we have thrown points away in the home games where we couldn't break teams down , FGR, Cambridge, Oxford for example where the inclusion of Jake at some point would very likely have given us all 3 points.
If he thinks McGrandles is any sort of player, Garner's an idiot.
If he thinks we believe one syllable of the denial of the owner's financial constraints on JFC's appearances, Garner's an idiot.
Add to that the clumsy deflection when asked about Jake's performance this week. Double down with risible bullshit about McGrandles being any good "...you haven't seen what he's got..." erm yes we have you lying buffoon, we've seen him play, the brevity of his contribution owed more to the bungling clogger doing his best to hide for most of his later appearances, the less said about his clownish debut the better
Garner has sought to include McGrandles whenever possible despite how naffing awful he's been. Frankly, JFC on one leg would be a safer bet.
can’t be easy. No wonder BG wants to try and support him.1 -
I kept saying to my cousin the game is crying out for JFC and it was probably Dobbo that had to go for him, comes on and first dead ball delivery put Stevenage in a world of danger.I am amazed Garner hasn’t utilised JFC more, he is exactly the type of player Garner likes, excellent ball retention, composed, can find a pass. He was levels and levels above any Stevenage midfielder when he came on. Unfortunately Fraser and Dobbo didn’t show that last night imo0
-
99% of Charlton supporters believe JFC should be in the matchday squad for Saturday. We can't all be wrong! If he isn't we can be certain Garner is a liar. Which is stupid of him as most of us like him, particularly now he started to show some more flexibility in his playing style.1
-
I bet Ben Garner could swerve his way around a multi lane car pile up, the way he avoids the JFC questionrobinofottershaw said:5 -
The same thought crossed my mind.ForeverAddickted said:
I bet Ben Garner could serve his way around a multi lane car pile up, the way he avoids the JFC questionrobinofottershaw said:1 -
He’d make a good politician 😏.ForeverAddickted said:
I bet Ben Garner could serve his way around a multi lane car pile up, the way he avoids the JFC questionrobinofottershaw said:2 -
He may well be ready to play, don't forget he was out for a long time. I honestly don't think Garner fancied him at first, this could be his time! Time will tell i guessalburyaddick said:
Redhenry - I always value your posts highly, but you have consistently said this and its the one area where I cannot understand your position. His pedigree, experience, performance and talent surely make him good enough in the 3rd division in this team !Redhenry said:If he's good enough, he will play!0 -
Just my opinion, I could be wrongRedhenry said:
He may well be ready to play, don't forget he was out for a long time. I honestly don't think Garner fancied him at first, this could be his time! Time will tell i guessalburyaddick said:
Redhenry - I always value your posts highly, but you have consistently said this and its the one area where I cannot understand your position. His pedigree, experience, performance and talent surely make him good enough in the 3rd division in this team !Redhenry said:If he's good enough, he will play!0
