Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Chuks Aneke - speculation re 2023/24 season (p60)
Comments
-
Doesn't really change the fact that we never should have given him the long term contract. And have currently wasted thousands of pounds this season on his wages when he hasn't set foot on the pitch in the first month.Athletico Charlton said:Quote from Garner:
"most importantly, people need to understand these are people. You get things thrown at players about being injured and that they don’t care – not the case at all. He’s desperate to get back and get playing".
I think some people on this thread need to read this and think before posting.6 -
Yup and that's on Chuks in what way...? - Doesnt really change the fact that he asked for something and got it - Yet its Chuks who constantly gets the mocking comments about constantly being injured.SELR_addicks said:
Doesn't really change the fact that we never should have given him the long term contract. And have currently wasted thousands of pounds this season on his wages when he hasn't set food on the pitch in the first month.Athletico Charlton said:Quote from Garner:
"most importantly, people need to understand these are people. You get things thrown at players about being injured and that they don’t care – not the case at all. He’s desperate to get back and get playing".
I think some people on this thread need to read this and think before posting.4 -
Shorthand, Chuks is fucked and we should feel sorry for him. On a personal level yes of course.ForeverAddickted said:
But from the point of view of running a business properly, what a shitshow.2 -
I don't think anyone on here has said that he doesn't care, or even anything remotely like it.Athletico Charlton said:Quote from Garner:
"most importantly, people need to understand these are people. You get things thrown at players about being injured and that they don’t care – not the case at all. He’s desperate to get back and get playing".
I think some people on this thread need to read this and think before posting.
Just that he's very injury prone & that it was mad to give him a 3.5 year contract.3 -
Not a single poster on this thread won’t feel sorry for Chuks. Why wouldn’t we. On the other hand, he’s a footballer taking up valuable space and resources in a struggling football club. We can’t afford and I’m reluctant to use the term passenger because let’s face it the lads never fit. Lovely footballer but Charlton can’t afford to have him.5
-
Even the poster who can’t wait to laugh at professional athletes getting injured.ShootersHillGuru said:Not a single poster on this thread won’t feel sorry for Chuks. Why wouldn’t we. On the other hand, he’s a footballer taking up valuable space and resources in a struggling football club. We can’t afford and I’m reluctant to use the term passenger because let’s face it the lads never fit. Lovely footballer but Charlton can’t afford to have him.1 -
.The suggestion that anybody, anybody at all, thinks that Chuks doesn't care is absolute Garnerbollocks.
As for those on here admonishing anybody that mocks his injury record.
I'm pretty certain Chuks will know we all want him fighting fit and playing.
The notion that players will come on to the forum and be crushed with hurt feelings over some "insensitive" banter is ridiculous.
I don't believe I need to be on the naughty step.
1 -
The question here is why on earth did he tell Swisdom he was fit, and then we find out that at least a week after that he was only just going for a scan to check if it had healed.0
-
Perhaps because, in his head, he is fit (the scan confirmed that) but the medical staff are being ultra cautious because they don't want him to break down straightaway again?Chris_from_Sidcup said:The question here is why on earth did he tell Swisdom he was fit, and then we find out that at least a week after that he was only just going for a scan to check if it had healed.
As much as from the outset I questioned (and still do) the wisdom in signing an injury prone super sub on a three and a half year contract, the fans' frustration isn't now limited to that. It's because he has now become the only senior and experienced replacement for Stockley - and that isn't his fault. A blind man knew that we had to sign someone as soon as we let Washington go but we left it to the last minute to do so and ended up with nothing.5 -
If a scan confirms that there is no physical damage that’s a good thing but it doesn’t mean Chuks is match fit. That takes longer to achieve after the injury has cleared up. If on the other hand we are talking about some mental issue where Chuks can’t allow himself to trust his body then in my view that’s far more of a worry. Regardless, we’ve not seen him yet and it would appear that we won’t any time soon. Disastrous.Addick Addict said:
Perhaps because, in his head, he is fit (the scan confirmed that) but the medical staff are being ultra cautious because they don't want him to break down straightaway again?Chris_from_Sidcup said:The question here is why on earth did he tell Swisdom he was fit, and then we find out that at least a week after that he was only just going for a scan to check if it had healed.
As much as from the outset I questioned (and still do) the wisdom in signing an injury prone super sub on a three and a half year contract, the fans' frustration isn't now limited to that. It's because he has now become the only senior and experienced replacement for Stockley - and that isn't his fault. A blind man knew that we had to sign someone as soon as we let Washington go but we left it to the last minute to do so and ended up with nothing.1 - Sponsored links:
-
That's what sports folk do! "I'm fine now, just waiting on the others". Maybe he was having some fun. He didn't sign up for an official interview when asked by Swisdom I suppose.Chris_from_Sidcup said:The question here is why on earth did he tell Swisdom he was fit, and then we find out that at least a week after that he was only just going for a scan to check if it had healed.1 -
I think some of the comments on this thread have arisen because there were some who were insisting that his injury record wasn't that bad. Where a 5 min cameo subs appearance was being trumpeted as " an appearance" in the same way as if it was a full 90 minutes.ForeverAddickted said:
Yup and that's on Chuks in what way...? - Doesnt really change the fact that he asked for something and got it - Yet its Chuks who constantly gets the mocking comments about constantly being injured.SELR_addicks said:
Doesn't really change the fact that we never should have given him the long term contract. And have currently wasted thousands of pounds this season on his wages when he hasn't set food on the pitch in the first month.Athletico Charlton said:Quote from Garner:
"most importantly, people need to understand these are people. You get things thrown at players about being injured and that they don’t care – not the case at all. He’s desperate to get back and get playing".
I think some people on this thread need to read this and think before posting.
Clearly theres been an ongoing issue for many years with the blokes fitness. Hopefully we can all agree on that now.3 -
0/12 (1080)1
-
Their defender just pretty much picked Clayden up by his armpits there. No foul given.*Dammit. Wrong thread5
-
I think in terms of pressing, I think we are to expect the same from Aneke as Stockley in this formation?
More was being asked of Aneke in friendlies in terms of pressing and minutes and his body broke down in friendly against Welling. Can't wait to have him back for me only a sub role is going to work as we have seen a la Bowyer times.0 -
We should go with a "full on pressing" game for 45 minutes (Stockley - Payne - Jay).
Then bring on Chucks, Miles and Morgan at half time to get the goals against exhausted defenders.0 -
Chucks - less of a “pressing game”, more like a “prezzie game”.He won’t be back till December IMO.0
-
Which one?Valiantphil said:Chucks - less of a “pressing game”, more like a “prezzie game”.He won’t be back till December IMO.0 -
Is there any way people can start spelling his name correctly? He’s been with us a few years now, it’s literally in the title of the thread, yet I still keep seeing ‘Chucks’. Maybe just call him Aneke if it’s that hard.1
-
Ask the medical team if in doubt, they are definitely on first name terms.JaShea99 said:Is there any way people can start spelling his name correctly? He’s been with us a few years now, it’s literally in the title of the thread, yet I still keep seeing ‘Chucks’. Maybe just call him Aneke if it’s that hard.2 - Sponsored links:
-
Even if he'd only been given an 18 months contract he'd have still been injured for the same period of time this season.SELR_addicks said:
Doesn't really change the fact that we never should have given him the long term contract. And have currently wasted thousands of pounds this season on his wages when he hasn't set foot on the pitch in the first month.Athletico Charlton said:Quote from Garner:
"most importantly, people need to understand these are people. You get things thrown at players about being injured and that they don’t care – not the case at all. He’s desperate to get back and get playing".
I think some people on this thread need to read this and think before posting.0 -
We don’t know how his season’s going to pan out, but if it continues in this manner there would be a strong case for releasing him in the summer and paying up his contract, or, finding somewhere to take him on loan. The first would be easier than the second option and I expect we’d have to pay some of his wages as well if he went on loan.
The best scenario I see for him and us is that if/when he’s fit again, we treat him a bit like Spurs did with Ledley King, except we only play him for 20-30 mins max. Might sound a bit ott, but I’m just thinking of practical ways you fit him in.I reckon if he comes back and we try and play him to any consistent degree, something would go wrong again. It’s not ideal, but him playing only 20-30 minutes of each game would be better for him, and better for us.0 -
Chuks can be useful to us. He often does more in 20 mins that our other strikers do in 90.
Now we can bring on 4 subs he definitely has a part to play.0 -
.
0 -
IF FIT TO BE ON THE BENCH - And that Ladies and Gentleman is the problem.Oh Eddie Youds... said:Chuks can be useful to us. He often does more in 20 mins that our other strikers do in 90.
Now we can bring on 4 subs he definitely has a part to play.1 -
What’s the benefit of paying up his contract though? Would cost as just as much as keeping him, with zero chance of him ever playing.cabbles said:We don’t know how his season’s going to pan out, but if it continues in this manner there would be a strong case for releasing him in the summer and paying up his contract, or, finding somewhere to take him on loan. The first would be easier than the second option and I expect we’d have to pay some of his wages as well if he went on loan.
The best scenario I see for him and us is that if/when he’s fit again, we treat him a bit like Spurs did with Ledley King, except we only play him for 20-30 mins max. Might sound a bit ott, but I’m just thinking of practical ways you fit him in.I reckon if he comes back and we try and play him to any consistent degree, something would go wrong again. It’s not ideal, but him playing only 20-30 minutes of each game would be better for him, and better for us.The very low chance we have seems the better choice0 -
Would you want to have him hanging around if he hardly played this season? If the squad is still capped at 22 players and he’s taking up a place, I’d argue that’s a place we could fill with someone else.Stu_of_Kunming said:
What’s the benefit of paying up his contract though? Would cost as just as much as keeping him, with zero chance of him ever playing.cabbles said:We don’t know how his season’s going to pan out, but if it continues in this manner there would be a strong case for releasing him in the summer and paying up his contract, or, finding somewhere to take him on loan. The first would be easier than the second option and I expect we’d have to pay some of his wages as well if he went on loan.
The best scenario I see for him and us is that if/when he’s fit again, we treat him a bit like Spurs did with Ledley King, except we only play him for 20-30 mins max. Might sound a bit ott, but I’m just thinking of practical ways you fit him in.I reckon if he comes back and we try and play him to any consistent degree, something would go wrong again. It’s not ideal, but him playing only 20-30 minutes of each game would be better for him, and better for us.The very low chance we have seems the better choiceIf he can come back and offer something in the way I’ve outlined in the second and third paragraphs, then I wouldn’t disagree with keeping him. However, if we hardly see him this season, he’s 0 for 9 so far, so almost a quarter gone already, then I really don’t see the point in keeping him past the end of this season.1 -
No point paying up his contract. He will end up going somewhere and getting significant game time knowing our luck. We have to try to get as many minutes out of him as possibe. There are no other options.3
-
We’ve only got 18 players under those rules, plenty of spaces availablecabbles said:
Would you want to have him hanging around if he hardly played this season? If the squad is still capped at 22 players and he’s taking up a place, I’d argue that’s a place we could fill with someone else.Stu_of_Kunming said:
What’s the benefit of paying up his contract though? Would cost as just as much as keeping him, with zero chance of him ever playing.cabbles said:We don’t know how his season’s going to pan out, but if it continues in this manner there would be a strong case for releasing him in the summer and paying up his contract, or, finding somewhere to take him on loan. The first would be easier than the second option and I expect we’d have to pay some of his wages as well if he went on loan.
The best scenario I see for him and us is that if/when he’s fit again, we treat him a bit like Spurs did with Ledley King, except we only play him for 20-30 mins max. Might sound a bit ott, but I’m just thinking of practical ways you fit him in.I reckon if he comes back and we try and play him to any consistent degree, something would go wrong again. It’s not ideal, but him playing only 20-30 minutes of each game would be better for him, and better for us.The very low chance we have seems the better choiceIf he can come back and offer something in the way I’ve outlined in the second and third paragraphs, then I wouldn’t disagree with keeping him. However, if we hardly see him this season, he’s 0 for 9 so far, so almost a quarter gone already, then I really don’t see the point in keeping him past the end of this season.
2 -
0/13 (1170)2
This discussion has been closed.
