Chuks Aneke - speculation re 2023/24 season (p60)

sinceiwasyoung

People have short memories.  Aneke was unplayable at times , mainly coming off the bench.  Glad he is back  , we have missed his goals massively. 

mendonca

I'd be happy with this but we can't assume he will bag a goal a (half) game like last time.

He had a good relationship with Millar. Once again another player fans thought was rubbish but appreciate him now as the alternatives aren't great!

Covered End

jacob_CAFC said:

Loved watching him play but concerned with his fitness. Yeah he scores but a professional footballer not being able to last 90 minutes? Why are we signing another sick note?

He was either top or close to being top goal scorer in L1 last season, based on minutes played. 

ct_addick

Make you wonder what Gallen and Co. have been doing if Chuks and Defoe are the answer....no L2 strikers worth taking a punt on or other championship strikers not getting minutes ? 

Croydon

Good player at this level, but we've gone about this on the most Charlton way possible.

Katrien Miere levels of business nous to wait half the season to replace a striker you desperately need, by signing the same striker back. If the budget was there, then wtf have we been doing with Davison as back up?

Addick Addict

kinveachyaddick said:

Belv said:

£300k for a player that left for nothing only 5 months ago.

What a fantastic piece of business.

Beggars can’t be choosers as they say. Who would you rather starts up front tomorrow- Chuks or Davison?

But can he start? And on a regular basis? He's started 13 and come on as sub 62 times in the116 League games that were played when he was with us and at Birmingham

SDAddick

ShootersHillGuru said:

stevexreeve said:

If the 5 subs rule becomes permanent we will see more "45 minute" payers in the game as managers develop tactics around making three changes soon after half-time. Chucks cameos may become quite normal.

Still find it hard to believe an athlete in a sport where the game lasts 90 minutes is permanently unable to play 90 minutes. 

Yeah but like, I feel this way about Jason Pearce and his inability to dribble a football, it's pretty key to the game. He's just good at other stuff.

Covered End

_MrDick said:

I’d have him back. Better option than Josh Davison 

Chuks is more likely to score in 5 mins, than Josh is in the entire game.

Tonbridgeaddick

Good to get Chuk’s back….£300 k for a proven goal scorer in L1 seems a bargain considering Kirk cost £500 K.  A frontline of Washington,Stockley, Aneke and Barstow is not too shabby

cafcdave123

SDAddick said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

stevexreeve said:

If the 5 subs rule becomes permanent we will see more "45 minute" payers in the game as managers develop tactics around making three changes soon after half-time. Chucks cameos may become quite normal.

Still find it hard to believe an athlete in a sport where the game lasts 90 minutes is permanently unable to play 90 minutes. 

Yeah but like, I feel this way about Jason Pearce and his inability to dribble a football, it's pretty key to the game. He's just good at other stuff.

so chucks being good at sitting on the bench is equally as important as Pearce's qualities (other than dribbling)  on the pitch?

RodneyCharltonTrotta

If he comes in a rekickstarts our season and gives us a foundation for our striking options next season then £300k will look like a great investment.

golfaddick

AFKABartram said:

Swisdom said:

The return of Chuks makes me think there is more to Stockley's hip injury than first we thought

:-( hope you are wrong mate, Stockley is huge for us

I'm led to believe that deal has been going on some time, certainly before Stockley got injured so its not a "panic buy" due to bad news on Stockley.  

mendonca

golfaddick said:

AFKABartram said:

Swisdom said:

The return of Chuks makes me think there is more to Stockley's hip injury than first we thought

:-( hope you are wrong mate, Stockley is huge for us

I'm led to believe that deal has been going on some time, certainly before Stockley got injured so its not a "panic buy" due to bad news on Stockley.  

Inside Golfie knowledge!

rananegra

I'm happy with this, I don't care if he's only on for 10 minutes a game, there's been enough games this season where we needed someone prepared to have a go at the goal and I know that Chuks is someone who will do that. Would we have lost to Crewe if we'd brought Chuks on for the last 20 minutes? 

Covered End

Bilko said:

Just why did we let him go in the summer for nought and buy him back for 300k.

madness really!! But I would welcome him back.

We didn't let him go ffs.
He was out of contract and chose to sign for a Championship club on a bigger wage!
It's not worked out as well as he would have liked & we've got him back.
Brilliant news.

ShootersHillGuru

For all Chuks fitness issues he’s still going to make us stronger and at £300k I’d still say it’s good business.

iaitch

killerandflash said:

The one positive about Chuks spell with Birmingham, is that he hasn't had injury problems. He's been in the 18 for every league game this season

Picture of Chuks on the bench for Birmingham.

Todds_right_hook

Addick Addict said:

kinveachyaddick said:

Belv said:

£300k for a player that left for nothing only 5 months ago.

What a fantastic piece of business.

Beggars can’t be choosers as they say. Who would you rather starts up front tomorrow- Chuks or Davison?

But can he start? And on a regular basis? He's started 13 and come on as sub 62 times in the116 League games that were played when he was with us and at Birmingham

And had one of the best minutes played v goals ratio in the country, not just the league

he was also our top scorer last season. 

He bullied defenders and created chances out of nothing.

he kept the ball which meant we weren't defending!!

i don't see how this is a bad signing. Next year we are allowed 5 subs again? What a player to bring on and run at and bully tired defences!

Charlton fans......we desperately need a proven league 1 goal scorer but not that proven league 1 goal scorer!!!!   

CL_Phantom

I don't see anyone acting like we released him, I see quite a few comments wondering why we didn't try and tie him down long before Brum came sniffing. 

Like how it points out in this article back in Feb, his importance and effectiveness, and, how Bowyer wanted to tie him down then.

https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/chuks-aneke-has-unique-abilities-its-vital-that-charlton-athletic-secure-former-arsenal-and-mk-striker-on-a-new-contract/

Like how we seem to be dragging our heels over Washington and Purringtons contracts this Jan, despite Jacko apparently wanting guarantees they'll get sorted while his own contract talks were on going.

Baffling how people don't understand this really 🤷🏻‍♂️

Covered End

Fortune 82nd Minute said:

Belv said:

£300k for a player that left for nothing only 5 months ago.

What a fantastic piece of business.

I've been out this morning and just seen this and nothing else.

I suspect I'm going to get whoosed here but are we really paying £300k for someone who left on a free transfer 7 months ago?

Jeez, he didn't leave on a free transfer.
He was out of contract.

Cafc43v3r

CL_Phantom said:

I don't see anyone acting like we released him, I see quite a few comments wondering why we didn't try and tie him down long before Brum came sniffing. 

Like how it points out in this article back in Feb, his importance and effectiveness, and, how Bowyer wanted to tie him down then.

https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/chuks-aneke-has-unique-abilities-its-vital-that-charlton-athletic-secure-former-arsenal-and-mk-striker-on-a-new-contract/

Like how we seem to be dragging our heels over Washington and Purringtons contracts this Jan, despite Jacko apparently wanting guarantees they'll get sorted while his own contract talks were on going.

Baffling how people don't understand this really 🤷🏻‍♂️

Even more baffling that we keep doing it tbh. 

ChiAddick

Considering we don't know the full extent/time frame of Stockleys hip injury this is a good move!

Covered End

LargeAddick said:

so we were not willing to push the boat out to keep him in the summer but willing to spend 300k fee now to get him back plus probably increase his wages. Bizarre. Why not have just offered him more in the summer to stay and at least we would have had him the last six months or so and who knows we may have been in for a shot at promotion with some vital goals scored. Shot our selves in the foot. And Birmingham must be laughing their heads off.

Plus I'm not convinced because if he can only play 30/45 minutes as his previous time with us, and his time at Brum, would suggest then we still havn't got a Stockley replacement. However, welcome back Chuks and better option than Defoe.

I'd be grateful if you'd let us all know what we offered Chuks and what Brum offered Chuks no doubt including a signing on fee, then we can judge as well as you 

Gribbo

They must think we were born yesterday. We don't take on any old player and just hope for the best you know - 

  

......would you consider £575k for both?

Simonsen

The Prince-e-Paul said:

As others have suggested, he'll do a job but only for 30 minutes so if Stockley or Washington are out, who plays the other 60 mins from the start?

Davison for the first 20 mins....Burstow for the next 50 mins.....Chuks for the final 20 mins (plus stoppage time....). Job done.

Fortune 82nd Minute

Covered End said:

Fortune 82nd Minute said:

Belv said:

£300k for a player that left for nothing only 5 months ago.

What a fantastic piece of business.

I've been out this morning and just seen this and nothing else.

I suspect I'm going to get whoosed here but are we really paying £300k for someone who left on a free transfer 7 months ago?

Jeez, he didn't leave on a free transfer.
He was out of contract.

Fair enough. I just used the wrong term as I know his contract was up and he was free to go elsewhere.

But I'm never going to agree with you that it is good business to let someone walk out the door and 7 months later, buy him back for £300k (if that is the true figure).

se9addick

Happy - even if he only plays 50% of the time he’ll still be a big threat. 

Covered_End_Lad

Fortune 82nd Minute said:

Covered End said:

Fortune 82nd Minute said:

Belv said:

£300k for a player that left for nothing only 5 months ago.

What a fantastic piece of business.

I've been out this morning and just seen this and nothing else.

I suspect I'm going to get whoosed here but are we really paying £300k for someone who left on a free transfer 7 months ago?

Jeez, he didn't leave on a free transfer.
He was out of contract.

Fair enough. I just used the wrong term as I know his contract was up and he was free to go elsewhere.

But I'm never going to agree with you that it is good business to let someone walk out the door and 7 months later, buy him back for £300k (if that is the true figure).

But we didn't let him walk out the door did we.

Redvaliant

Another ex player resigned. Beginning to seem a bit lazy.

Chizz

Fortune 82nd Minute said:

Covered End said:

Fortune 82nd Minute said:

Belv said:

£300k for a player that left for nothing only 5 months ago.

What a fantastic piece of business.

I've been out this morning and just seen this and nothing else.

I suspect I'm going to get whoosed here but are we really paying £300k for someone who left on a free transfer 7 months ago?

Jeez, he didn't leave on a free transfer.
He was out of contract.

Fair enough. I just used the wrong term as I know his contract was up and he was free to go elsewhere.

But I'm never going to agree with you that it is good business to let someone walk out the door and 7 months later, buy him back for £300k (if that is the true figure).

Would you be persuaded if, for example, the total cost of his return (transfer fee plus salary) were significantly less than we would have had to pay to keep him (salary plus salary uplift, plus signing-on fee)?