So many bitter people Aneke is out of contract, let him go where he wants.
If it isn't here, I don't want him here.
There's a lot of 2+2= 5 on this thread, Aneke hasn't said he's not going to sign, he hasn't said he doesn't want to sign. There's no reason to think he actually has any intention of going to Shrewsbury or anywhere else.
None of the players offered new contracts have signed up yet. None of them. Relax, people.
So many bitter people Aneke is out of contract, let him go where he wants.
If it isn't here, I don't want him here.
There's a lot of 2+2= 5 on this thread, Aneke hasn't said he's not going to sign, he hasn't said he doesn't want to sign. There's no reason to think he actually has any intention of going to Shrewsbury or anywhere else.
None of the players offered new contracts have signed up yet. None of them. Relax, people.
That's my point, if he doesn't want to sign, then thats fine.
If he wants to sign that's fine.
So far we know nothing, but if he doesn't want to sign, I don't want him to.
I have no doubt that those offered deals but not yet signed will be given deadlines to put pen to paper or bye bye. The club needs to know where it stands in getting a squad together and can’t afford to wait and end up not getting replacements. I hope that’s the case anyway.
So many bitter people Aneke is out of contract, let him go where he wants.
If it isn't here, I don't want him here.
It’s not bitter, it’s shock that Shrewsbury are (potentially) offering a better contract than ‘premier league in 5 years time’ Charlton
But there's no proof that's happened. They MAY have possibly offered him a contract but there's no way of knowing whether or not it's one he'd even consider or chuck straight in the bin.
I have no doubt that those offered deals but not yet signed will be given deadlines to put pen to paper or bye bye. The club needs to know where it stands in getting a squad together and can’t afford to wait and end up not getting replacements. I hope that’s the case anyway.
So many bitter people Aneke is out of contract, let him go where he wants.
If it isn't here, I don't want him here.
It’s not bitter, it’s shock that Shrewsbury are (potentially) offering a better contract than ‘premier league in 5 years time’ Charlton
But there's no proof that's happened. They MAY have possibly offered him a contract but there's no way of knowing whether or not it's one he'd even consider or chuck straight in the bin.
Chuk's record coming off the bench is phenomenal. If we accept that he is unlikely to be a starter, it is clear to see that he could play a vital part in any potential promotion push.
I really hope we sign him up again so that he can be unleashed on the opposition late game. Can you think of anyone better that you could bring on at this level?
Wyke has turned down his contract offer from Sunderland.
Sounds like Ipswich target number three for their new centre forward.
Each to their own here, but I would love Wyke.
Stick Wyke and Stockley on from the rip, get some wingers in who can deliver crosses, 4, 4 f****n 2! Record season for most scored headers. When teams start sitting deep/pitching up shop, bring on the Chuks.
So many bitter people Aneke is out of contract, let him go where he wants.
If it isn't here, I don't want him here.
It’s not bitter, it’s shock that Shrewsbury are (potentially) offering a better contract than ‘premier league in 5 years time’ Charlton
But there's no proof that's happened. They MAY have possibly offered him a contract but there's no way of knowing whether or not it's one he'd even consider or chuck straight in the bin.
Like I say. 2+2=5 thinking.
As I’ve said potentially
More likey to be length of contract then money ... Charlton offered one year with options built in depending on playing time .. but if another club offering a straight 2 year with nithjng connected to his fitness his agent going yo take that ...
I know for a fact that Chuks is a big fan of the Shropshire Hills and he is on record as describing Market Drayton as ‘charming’ and ‘like stepping back in time’, so there might be something in it.
We will probally going back to only three subs next season, having 5 subs it was easy to use Chucks as a super-sub, but with only three subs injuries during the game could make bringing on Chucks less likely.
Chuk's record coming off the bench is phenomenal. If we accept that he is unlikely to be a starter, it is clear to see that he could play a vital part in any potential promotion push.
I really hope we sign him up again so that he can be unleashed on the opposition late game. Can you think of anyone better that you could bring on at this level?
Agree entirely with this. So Chuks can't start... fine, we can work with that if he can be relied upon to be consistently available for selection as a sub. He was last season (I think he was only injured twice and once was for COVID and none were long lay-offs) so he's very useful as a sub. His goals per minute stats blew everyone else out of the water, including Clarke Harris, and that was without taking penalties. If it was a case of him being available for 6 games and then injured for 12, and therefore completely unreliable, then I'd say get rid, but he's shown his injury related limitations can be managed and he can still have a big contribution while working inside those limitations so he is well worth keeping imo.
Chuk's record coming off the bench is phenomenal. If we accept that he is unlikely to be a starter, it is clear to see that he could play a vital part in any potential promotion push.
I really hope we sign him up again so that he can be unleashed on the opposition late game. Can you think of anyone better that you could bring on at this level?
It’s also worth considering that should Chuks get past his current inability to play 90 minutes regularly which with the right manager and support he might well do, then the club probably have a £2 million plus player on their hands.
Chuk's record coming off the bench is phenomenal. If we accept that he is unlikely to be a starter, it is clear to see that he could play a vital part in any potential promotion push.
I really hope we sign him up again so that he can be unleashed on the opposition late game. Can you think of anyone better that you could bring on at this level?
Agree entirely with this. So Chuks can't start... fine, we can work with that if he can be relied upon to be consistently available for selection as a sub. He was last season (I think he was only injured twice and once was for COVID and none were long lay-offs) so he's very useful as a sub. His goals per minute stats blew everyone else out of the water, including Clarke Harris, and that was without taking penalties. If it was a case of him being available for 6 games and then injured for 12, and therefore completely unreliable, then I'd say get rid, but he's shown his injury related limitations can be managed and he can still have a big contribution while working inside those limitations so he is well worth keeping imo.
Agreed, at the right price.
We've spent too long building the core of our team around injury prone players and it's left us in difficult positions over and over again. If he's willing to accept a squad player's contract then he should be kept on - maybe with clauses such as appearance & goal bonuses. If a club like Shrewsbury wants to come in and offer him all of that money up front then best of luck to them.
We will probally going back to only three subs next season, having 5 subs it was easy to use Chucks as a super-sub, but with only three subs injuries during the game could make bringing on Chucks less likely.
How many times would you name a striker on the bench with five subs (of which you could use 3), how many times would you HAVE to use at least 2 during the game?
If we are using the working hypothesis of the fact we are going for a title winning team, and it being suitably funded without throwing money around, we need 4 strikers.
Chuks wouldn't score 40 goals in a season if he started every game. Its a massive asset having someone that can score, regularly, off the bench, at any level.
If he comes on as a sub, for 20-30 minutes, in 35 of our games next season he will probably score 15-20 goals. That would be priceless. That could be the difference between winning the league or being in the play offs. That could be the difference between being in the play offs and missing out.
This season the problem wasn't so much that Chuks could only play 30-60 minutes, the problem was we didn't have anyone else that could score, for large parts of the season.
While I don’t doubt this, surely the job of an agent is to try and get his client to the best place possible and make other clubs quake in their boots that THAT club is in for their player meaning the other clubs react quickly...
Anyone who reads Shrewsbury are in for Aneke will just laugh.
Chuk's record coming off the bench is phenomenal. If we accept that he is unlikely to be a starter, it is clear to see that he could play a vital part in any potential promotion push.
I really hope we sign him up again so that he can be unleashed on the opposition late game. Can you think of anyone better that you could bring on at this level?
Agree entirely with this. So Chuks can't start... fine, we can work with that if he can be relied upon to be consistently available for selection as a sub. He was last season (I think he was only injured twice and once was for COVID and none were long lay-offs) so he's very useful as a sub. His goals per minute stats blew everyone else out of the water, including Clarke Harris, and that was without taking penalties. If it was a case of him being available for 6 games and then injured for 12, and therefore completely unreliable, then I'd say get rid, but he's shown his injury related limitations can be managed and he can still have a big contribution while working inside those limitations so he is well worth keeping imo.
Agreed, at the right price.
We've spent too long building the core of our team around injury prone players and it's left us in difficult positions over and over again. If he's willing to accept a squad player's contract then he should be kept on - maybe with clauses such as appearance & goal bonuses. If a club like Shrewsbury wants to come in and offer him all of that money up front then best of luck to them.
But he's not the core of the squad, he's a substitute, and last season he contributed more from the bench than almost any of our regular starters did. Hopefully next season we'll be using him to turn 1-0s into 2-0s and 2-1s into 3-1, rather than too often trying to recover from losing positions.
Chuk's record coming off the bench is phenomenal. If we accept that he is unlikely to be a starter, it is clear to see that he could play a vital part in any potential promotion push.
I really hope we sign him up again so that he can be unleashed on the opposition late game. Can you think of anyone better that you could bring on at this level?
Agree entirely with this. So Chuks can't start... fine, we can work with that if he can be relied upon to be consistently available for selection as a sub. He was last season (I think he was only injured twice and once was for COVID and none were long lay-offs) so he's very useful as a sub. His goals per minute stats blew everyone else out of the water, including Clarke Harris, and that was without taking penalties. If it was a case of him being available for 6 games and then injured for 12, and therefore completely unreliable, then I'd say get rid, but he's shown his injury related limitations can be managed and he can still have a big contribution while working inside those limitations so he is well worth keeping imo.
Agreed, at the right price.
We've spent too long building the core of our team around injury prone players and it's left us in difficult positions over and over again. If he's willing to accept a squad player's contract then he should be kept on - maybe with clauses such as appearance & goal bonuses. If a club like Shrewsbury wants to come in and offer him all of that money up front then best of luck to them.
But he's not the core of the squad, he's a substitute, and last season he contributed more from the bench than almost any of our regular starters did. Hopefully next season we'll be using him to turn 1-0s into 2-0s and 2-1s into 3-1, rather than too often trying to recover from losing positions.
If he's a substitute, shouldn't he be getting paid like a substitute?
I'm not knocking his contributions, they were important this season. But if we go making him one of the highest paid players to exclusively come off the bench, what does that do for squad balance/harmony?
Comments
Sounds like Ipswich target number three for their new centre forward.
If it isn't here, I don't want him here.
None of the players offered new contracts have signed up yet. None of them. Relax, people.
If he wants to sign that's fine.
So far we know nothing, but if he doesn't want to sign, I don't want him to.
Like I say. 2+2=5 thinking.
It's likely an agent stirring.
I really hope we sign him up again so that he can be unleashed on the opposition late game. Can you think of anyone better that you could bring on at this level?
Stick Wyke and Stockley on from the rip, get some wingers in who can deliver crosses, 4, 4 f****n 2! Record season for most scored headers. When teams start sitting deep/pitching up shop, bring on the Chuks.
So unless he copies Ian Dowie or Dale Stephens I think we can scrub him off the list.
Agree entirely with this. So Chuks can't start... fine, we can work with that if he can be relied upon to be consistently available for selection as a sub. He was last season (I think he was only injured twice and once was for COVID and none were long lay-offs) so he's very useful as a sub. His goals per minute stats blew everyone else out of the water, including Clarke Harris, and that was without taking penalties. If it was a case of him being available for 6 games and then injured for 12, and therefore completely unreliable, then I'd say get rid, but he's shown his injury related limitations can be managed and he can still have a big contribution while working inside those limitations so he is well worth keeping imo.
We've spent too long building the core of our team around injury prone players and it's left us in difficult positions over and over again. If he's willing to accept a squad player's contract then he should be kept on - maybe with clauses such as appearance & goal bonuses. If a club like Shrewsbury wants to come in and offer him all of that money up front then best of luck to them.
If we are using the working hypothesis of the fact we are going for a title winning team, and it being suitably funded without throwing money around, we need 4 strikers.
Chuks wouldn't score 40 goals in a season if he started every game. Its a massive asset having someone that can score, regularly, off the bench, at any level.
If he comes on as a sub, for 20-30 minutes, in 35 of our games next season he will probably score 15-20 goals. That would be priceless. That could be the difference between winning the league or being in the play offs. That could be the difference between being in the play offs and missing out.
This season the problem wasn't so much that Chuks could only play 30-60 minutes, the problem was we didn't have anyone else that could score, for large parts of the season.
Anyone who reads Shrewsbury are in for Aneke will just laugh.
But he's not the core of the squad, he's a substitute, and last season he contributed more from the bench than almost any of our regular starters did. Hopefully next season we'll be using him to turn 1-0s into 2-0s and 2-1s into 3-1, rather than too often trying to recover from losing positions.
I'm not knocking his contributions, they were important this season. But if we go making him one of the highest paid players to exclusively come off the bench, what does that do for squad balance/harmony?